February 2004 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 takeda at SONIC.NET Sun Feb 1 05:13:43 2004
From: takeda at SONIC.NET (Matthew Takeda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Natural vs forced convection
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.2004.021343.0800.TAKEDA@SONIC.NET>

By the way, the use of thermoelectric modules was discussed a couple of
years ago on the stoves list. Part of the thread is here:
<http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200112/msg00001.html> and
here: <http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200112/msg00011.html>.

The radiolantern device mentioned doesn't seem to exist any more. I was
able to find a description and some pictures at
<http://modernoutpost.com/gear/details/gw_lantern_generator.html>, but the
manufacturer's site at <http://www.radiolantern.com> is dead, and seems to
have gone away last September.

There is a nice module at <http://www.hi-z.com/websit03.htm> that might be
adaptable.

Matthew Takeda
the JOAT
From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Feb 1 05:41:20 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Natural vs forced convection
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040201015501.027a2740@pop.sonic.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.2004.104120.0000.>

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 02:13:43 -0800, Matthew Takeda wrote:

>By the way, the use of thermoelectric modules was discussed a couple of
>years ago on the stoves list. Part of the thread is here:
><http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200112/msg00001.html> and
>here: <http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200112/msg00011.html>.

Yes this I considered it in the past, the requirement for low tech
made me look at a flash steam coil. With even semiconductor devices
(which reject heat at ambient so no further use for cooking) the
thermoelectric conversion is measured in small per cents the metal
ones seem not worthwhile, remember we are looking at an electrical
requirement of about .3W per kW(t), a conversion of 0.03%. On the
surface a device made of alternating boundaries of nickel and iron
would appear to fit the bill of cheapness and ruggedness. Possibly it
could even form the pot with suitable insulation between the
lamination, maybe even all friction welded into one???

The idea being to reject the heat at a much higher temperature and
still use it for cooking, the thermo electric device thus being in
series with the cooking load.
>
>The radiolantern device mentioned doesn't seem to exist any more. I was
>able to find a description and some pictures at
><http://modernoutpost.com/gear/details/gw_lantern_generator.html>, but the
>manufacturer's site at <http://www.radiolantern.com> is dead, and seems to
>have gone away last September.
>
>There is a nice module at <http://www.hi-z.com/websit03.htm> that might be
>adaptable.

These are all rather expensive semiconductor based gadgets, did you
also look at the thermo optical ones, these used the fact that pv
technology with a shift to the infra red managed a better conversion.
The idea being to raise an incandescent material in the combustion
chamber to white heat and then grab the photons emitted by this.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Feb 1 05:41:23 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Vortex "believer" or experiement
In-Reply-To: <401977A1.7321.1CB0A4B@localhost>
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.2004.104123.0000.>

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:14:09 -0500, english@kingston.net wrote:

>( For South America you may have to reverse the direction of swirl:)
>Alex

:-)
>
>"Swirl improves flame stability by forming toroidal recirculation zones
>that recirculate heat and active chemical species to the base of the
>flame and thereby broaden the range of velocity in which flame
>stabilization is possible.

I knew many things were going on, this again points to the need to
recirculate heat within the flame. Indeed there is one wood burning
"scientist" here that claims this increase in retention time in the
combustion chamber can mean woodburning can be cleaner than a natural
gas flame, where, whilst the chemistry is inherently simpler, all the
reaction has to take place in an essentially laminar, though pre
mixed, flame.

What date was the publication you quoted from?

AJH

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Sun Feb 1 06:27:19 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Natural vs forced convection
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.2004.112719.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Andrew & Stovers,

Providing a draught for a stove is something that could be done with a
small
(model) hot-air engine.

An engine of about 1" bore and 1" stroke can supply about 5W of shaft
power - which is adequate for driving a forced air fan. An engine of this
size takes about 30 seconds to warm up on a 100W flame and will then run at
about 1200 to 1500rpm for as long as there is heat.

Suitably engineered, the engine could be integrated into the body of the
stove. An aluminium casting used to form carrying handles on the sides of
the stove could form the cylinder block. Most of the rest of the engine is
simple metal pressings with a hot cap made from a stainless steel salt
pot -
very cheaply available throughout Asia.

I am currently working on a new class of hot-air engine, known
as the Medium Temperature Difference engine (MTD).

They are designed specifically to work at the lower temperatures found when
burning biomass - in simple terms they return good power when they are
black-hot, without having to be red hot!

Not having to cope with 800 degrees C, means that thinner material can be
used,
and aluminium in place of copper or stainless steel. The lower temperature
difference
across the engine (about 400 degrees) means that less heat is lost through
thermal
shorting between hot end and cold.

Heat -exchangers made from low cost stainless steel cooking pots allow
these engines
to be built in a simple metal working shop at minimum cost.

The main application is for water pumping and power generation running on
biomass. A couple of hundred watts will pump a lot of water in a day, and
is sufficient to run a TV, medicine cooler, communications equipment or
provide low energy lighting to about 5 homes.

We have a test engine running at my colleague's shop in Denver and hope to
produce a paper later this year.

regards,

Ken Boak

Stirling Services

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Feb 1 06:56:07 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Natural vs forced convection
In-Reply-To: <0a4e01c3e8b6$5adc3a20$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.2004.115607.0000.>

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:27:19 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:

>
>Andrew & Stovers,
>
> Providing a draught for a stove is something that could be done with a
>small
> (model) hot-air engine.

Good to hear from you again Ken, how's things?

I agree a small hot air engine could work, it's an area where a
stirling could benefit if wear problems could be solved, cheaply.
Sophisticated stirling engines (with I believe free pistons) are now
in use to supplement grid connected supplies and home heating, they
claim a 9:1 ratio of heat to electricity.

The drift of my post was that the Seebeck effect device could be
relatively costless of energy IF the cold side could be kept above the
temperature of the cooking food. All other devices (with the exception
of a chimney) parasitise the heat from the cooking and reject it at a
lower temperature than could be reused.

In terms of simplicity the idea of a co shafted turbine and fan
running on a flash steam coil, which you originally proposed, seems a
better bet. My trials using a steam aspirator AND attempting to return
the enthalpy of the steam to the cooking fell foul because it
interfered with combustion badly. I believe this was compounded by
drawback that the coanda and venturi devices I tried, whilst having
the benefit of simplicity and no moving parts, where inherently lossy.
I think they effectively conserved momentum but were poor transferrers
of energy.

I collected together the bits for driving a fan by steam from a
flashtube but have not tried yet, I have no means to measure gas
velocities to check conversion efficiency nor best size to nozzle
ratio for the steam. The original intention was to be able to
fabricate the device from car old brake pipes and tincanium,
pressurising the system with a bicycle tyre pump.

Intuitively I would guess a cook would be prepared to "waste" about
10% of the fuel if it made cooking more straightforward and clean, the
other point being that more difficult fuels can be burnt cleanly with
fan power.

AJH

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Feb 4 01:25:33 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Marketing Clean, Efficent Household Energy
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.2004.222533.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Stovers,

As the self-appointed delegates from the world of household energy find their way home from the highly stimulating and energizing conferences of ETHOS and the new Partnership for Clean Indoor Air they will be thinking of ways to repond to Don O'Neal's call for urgency: we need to accelerate the dissemination of clean and efficient cooking, heating and lighting appliances.

The conferences enjoyed the enthusiasm, creativity, dedication and devotion of many individuals and organizations. This year we have expanded the circle. We have seen USAID and USEPA join Shell and others to engage the issues of clean air and household energy. We saw how a variety of technologies - alcohol, biogas, and improved biomass stoves - are being applied to the task. We have seen many examples in India, Nepal, Southeast Asia, North, Central and South America and Africa of the way that traditional social and cultural institutions are being effectively used to implement new technologies to provide clean and efficient heat and light. We have seen that both traditional and modern marketing approaches are being taken to engage a seemingly overwhelming task.

We have embraced and learned from the work of the 1980s and 1990s by Baldwin, Verhaart, Visser and Prasad. Thanks to EPA, Winrock and USAID for bringing Prasad, Visser and Verhardt and many delegates from abroad to join the conference in the US. Representatives from Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Inda, Nepal, South Africa, the Solar Energy organizations, Rotary and the many NGO's working in various countries shared their experiences, concerns, and solutions.

We had a meeting of the communication networks - the Stoves list, ETHOS, Hedon Breathe Easy, ARECOP, etc. - and resolved to increase communication and cooperation among the networks to reach the greatest number of people with the evolving technologies and experiences.

It is my observation that we have many technological solutions at various stages of development that have been adapted to many cultural and physical circumstances. We will continue the good work. A real problem is how to extend the benefits to those in need, who are increasing, not decreasing, in number.

We are beginning to see positive results from sustained efforts in communities where integrated development solutions to health, eductaion and welfare are being carried out. Stove technologies are being integrated with solar and other systems to complement the improvement of forest and water resources, health, shelter, education and other social services. Stoves programs find success and growth where trust has been established across a range of such services.

Marketing clean and efficient household energy is a task that is beginning to look achievable if we can continue the accelerated development and dedication that we have engaged in the last few years. Don's Helps International stoves program is one of many that sees the challenge and the need to accelerate production and disemination of improved stoves and improved community development to achieve sustained local development. We need to broaden our discussion of ideas and experiences to meet the challenge.

While the task is daunting it is a source of great satisfaction for me to see so many creative people dedicated to the task. I feel that we have greater momentum now than we have had since I started working with household energy and rural development in the 1960s.

Tom Miles

From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Fri Feb 6 01:04:49 2004
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: NDG
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040128160635.0208b398@mail.optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.2004.060449.0000.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

I would like to carry a water boiling test to find the
efficiency of my stove ,hence I would like to know
how to calculate the final mass of ash in the water
boiling test.

--- Peter Verhaart <pverhaart@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Why?
>
> Peter Verhaart
>
> At 14:11 27/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
> > I would like to know how to calculate
> the
> >final mass of ash in the water boiling test.
> >
> >=====
> >krish
>

=====
krish

___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save ?80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Feb 7 23:20:21 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Notes on the Ethos Stoves Workshop - Day 1
Message-ID: <SAT.7.FEB.2004.212021.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: The following is now exactly a week old - notes I took as the Ethos workshop took place. On subsequent days, I will try to get the remaining three days out to the stoves list as well.

Thanks to Tom Miles for his summary of a few days ago. I will try some summary comments myself at the end of these four days.

Trying to be accurate and give full names - but Ethos will send out a list of e-mail addresses. Not everyone attending is on "stoves" - so hope that others will send this if it seems appropriate. My main interest here is to let "stovers" know what was happening - acting as a reporter. Corrections will be appreciated.

Notes on ETHOS Meeting; Seattle January 31, 2004

A. Pre-Coffee Period

1. Mark Bryden began at 8:20 with intros - the Ethos Board of Lisa, Don, Tami, Dean (Secr.); Rogerio, Jim (? - Not here);

2. Professor Bill Randolph from Northwest College, Dean Still and Lisa Buttner (Conference Chair) also gave Welcomes and noted the importance of the meeting.

3. Mark: gave the Ethos Dues, next conference - dues for $60; student $10; Foreign (Developing country) -$10.

4. Committee Reports

a. Ceramic Materials - Damon Ogle

b. Central America - Stewart Conway

c. Conference - 2005 (More Universities joining Ethos)

d. Stoves Camp - Dean Still. 22 people in attendance. Highlight - Larry's Gasifier Ford Truck

e. Solar Cooker (Integrated - also Haybox) - Bruce Stahlburg mentioning Jack Anderson, introducing Barbara Knudsen; Solar Cookers Int'l

f. Africa - Crispin - mentioned Anglo Rustin Mines; Probec Commercialization success, John Davies, Paul Anderson.

g. Refugee Stoves - Larry Winiarski - collapsible; Ken Goyer, Damon Ogle- bricks - $1.00 - self firing being worked on.

h. Asia - Tami , several Slides, showing Kim Oanh, Thailand; Chandra Venkataraman, IIT Mumbai; Bo Yiyun, Beijing; Slide 2- Non University ARECOP; RWEDP

i. Outreach - Tom Miles; noting help from Priya Karve, Kirk Smith (transmittal from Tami), Grant Ballard-Tremeer; Breath Easy Network (Shell)

i. Safety - Mark Bryden (noted paper discussed especially on Day #3)

j. Ethos Promotional - Scott; no new work

k. Cookpot Effectiveness; Charcoal - no reports

l. Field Tests - Patrick Flynn

m Emissions Stove Testing - Dean Still; acknowledged work with Tami. High quality testing will be possible soon.

n. Foundation Support - Dana Charron. Noted difficulty in sending funds abroad

o. Video - Tom Miles. Has abundant content - but no video. Need volunteer videographer.

p. Tools - Ken Goyer (wood splitting)

5. Comments - Rogerio on ARECOP - "impressed" . Others seeing benefits of Regional Conferences

B. Session 2 after coffee

1. Brenda Doroski US EPA - working from a PPt. Her interest - social marketing. Have established 4 priority areas : barriers, markets, design criteria, exposures. There are now many partners (Not all in "stoves" area). EPA is actively recruiting other countries. Described a meeting in New York - May 2003 - and several others, Mexico, India. They are presently reviewing 32 Pilot Project Grant applications - out of 91 submitted. These are due Tuesday - awards to be made in April 2004 ($50k - $150k). There will be (in Italy) a March 2004 Workshop with WHO and Shell Foundation. She provided 6 Measures of Success which I did not get down.

2. Karen Westley; Shell Foundation. Program is called "Breathe Easy". Maybe programs later in Kenya and Ghana. But now 4 places: Mexico, Guatemala, India, Ethiopia (all described in later days). Successive slides entitled "Target driven vs. demand driven"; "Price Subsidy vs Consumer finance"; "Renewables vs. full menu"; "Technology Vs CVP"; "NGOs/government vs. enterprises".

Other slides and discussion: "Benefit of hindsight - India Programme"; "Business proposition - To sell a product.." China, Panda Stove (kerosene)"; "Kenya Breathe Easy Fund"; the Shell approach

C. After Break (10:40) - Brief 5-10 minutes reports

1. Dean Still - report on Last summer's camp; Credit given to Sam Baldwin; acknowledged errors in some past testing. Present recommendation - test with 15 minutes high; 45 minute low (6:1 ration turndown recommended). Problems with using only PHU. Noted work in India and China - VITA's difficulty in doing test (espec. for novice testers)

Much of total energy is needed for simmering, but much testing now ignoring low power needs.

2. Damon Ogle - on the need for a standard pot - now working with Rob Bailis (UC Berkeley). Recommends standardizing on an Emergency Relief Pot - used in a UN 5 person emergency kit 7.5 liters , stainless. Prefers use of specific consumption.

3. Stove Safety - Mark Bryden. Started with a Photo of Pune (India) stove - 600 years old. Noted possible ANSI approach (a first world approach). Could give stoves some number of stars for safety.

4. Dale Andreatta - Thermal Properties of Lightweight Ceramics. Discussed handout showing three thermal properties: Density, Specific heat (all materials about the same); thermal conductivity. Excellent analytic study that hopefully will be put up on the "stoves" site by Tom Miles.

5. Dana Charron - Evaluating the Eco-Stove (CEIHO - Center . Health). ESMAP (with Rogerio, Nicaragua) ; limited budget and timeline ($15k). Two different stoves - compared to open fire. (one semi open - both with chimney)

6. Tami Bond. Noted distinctions between Emissions Vs. exposure; Mentioned Grant Ballard-Tremeer's thesis work; need both CO and PM; Best to do in real time. Sees need for work at three levels -

I. In-field monitoring - confirm improvements, rapid feedback. Not being done by Tami (some by Kirk).

II. Stove design Lab - evaluate design choices, demonstrate emission improvements. Hood; Pollutants (CO via NDIR), PM via light scattering; CO2, O2. Data acquisition - computerized.

III. High end (University) testing - validate, less-expensive . Outstanding questions ("Amazing that these still exist):

Chimney, Representativeness, Confirmation (what is minimum amount of measurement to ensure an effective stove)

End at 11:53 (asked to eat early to accommodate College weekend schedule.)

D. Cooking Technologies (start at 1:15) Series of short reports

1.. Priya Karve - Biogas - residential application. 25 liters from 50 gm. "blue flame revolution."
2.. Wilfred Pimentel - Solar and integrated stoves. Working in Rwanda. on both rocket stove and solar cooker. Mentioned Bolivia - Dave Whitfield
3.. (1:42) Agua Das (replacing Tom Reed) Gasification. 300 BTU / ft3. Discussed separation of functions.
4.. Harry Stokes - Ethanol stove. Formerly Electrolux - now Dometic (since 2001). Project Gaia - in Nigeria flared CH4; preferred use to convert to methanol. Recent interest also in Ethanol; 50% of can residue disposed of improperly. Noted another similar effort called Millennium Gelfuel. Initially Origo Co.
5.. Rogerio Miranda - Brazil. 50 million households; 5 Million using wood. Now operating in a for-profit company. Has switched to using a cast iron plancha. Moving now to 4 inch chimney pipe rather than 3 inch - cleaning less often. Is testing the alcohol stove.
6.. Crispin - Reporting on his Heat-recycling stove (Vesto). Is advocating preheating. Present Demo -$40 with tax and distributors. 3:05 - start coffee break

E. Continued short reports (start 3:30)
1.. Krishna Prasad on Chimney and other problem areas. Noted Downdraft. Showed some data - not published
2.. Pieta Visser of BTG - also formerly Eindhoven. Discussed problems with Water boiling and fuel consumption tests. Suggests using 3kW for 25 minutes, then 1 kW. Showed comparison figures - tests vs computations.
3.. Piet Verhaart - also formerly Eindhoven. Ref Hassan Khan work. 7.5 kW Downdraft comparisons - fairly sooty with updraft. Using for barbecue
4.. Larry Winiarski start at 4:18, with nice intro by Dean Still. Formerly at EPA - Chimneys. Discussed Lorena - good and bad points. Instead chose metered fuel approach - rather than gasification. Credit given to Ken Goyer and Damon Ogle. Numerous photos in various parts of world
5. Question period - Tom Miles - noted nice Cookstove Website at ITDG (not sure of this site)

6. Mark - What major lessons?

a. Larry - meter the fuel.

b. Das - Gumm's theory for blast furnaces - 3 particle diameters.

7. Mark - What do we still have to learn.

a. Piet Verhaart - desires c lever way to feed automatically. (Larry said Rocket does this already)

b. Visser - dissemination

c. Prasad - problem with governments. Problem with costs in private sector.

8. Q - what measure of sustainability for stoves training - How much permanent impact. A. Need for critical mass - need follow-up; one person can be key.

a. Lisa Buttner - need for training - difficult with off-the-shelf technology

b. Verhaart - asked about use by this group of the Pressure Cooker.

1.. 5:08 Self Intros to Posters
1.. Andreatta - Hood
2.. Dar - solar systems
3.. Anderson - gasifiers
4.. Tom Miles - web - now 150 Mbytes
5.. Dean Still - emission equipment
6.. Mark Bryden - on models
7.. Margie Pinnell (not here) - Bill Creighton (Dayton) - programs overseas. Materials testing
8.. Lisa Buttner - Winrock Intl (60 countries) - their International programs; integrated approach
9.. John Mitchell - Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (EPA)
10.. Crispin (advertising material)
11.. Barbara Knudsen (Solar cookers) Refugee camp experience. Recommends greater attention to gender issues.
12.. Das - BEF Publications
13.. Mark - on future CD that will be sent out with all PPts
Close for dinner at 5:30; Then after dinner

G. Slide shows

1. Peter Scott. Bread Oven 200 kg for 17 kg - $3000/YR. Got fuel consumption down by 97%. Central Africa existing BellaRive - expensive $700 - $1000, high maintenance (Chimney) from Kenya. Uganda 49% efficiency WITHOUT chimney 75 liters 52 minutes - 6 kg; 36% with chimney. Uganda - Portable rocket. Uganda - Improved Lorena. Lesotho - Nkokonono Household stove (tin pop cans). Mozambique - clay and vermiculite.

2. Rogerio - BBC video 8:06 several weeks before the WSSD

3. Stewart Conway - Video Natural Geographic few years old. Jan 2001 - Justa

4. 8:40 Don O'Neal Guatemala

5. Karve - $7.50 /Serai; $1 for kilo charcoal - use 100 gms each.

6. 9:10 Patrick Flynn - on light weight bricks - some deterioration *w Damon

7. Piet Verhaart

8. Grant Ballard-Tremeer - Hedon - no slides - but website on line. Now at 450 subscribers , 65% developing countries Spark Network (South Africa) Open access.

Question on kerosene vaporizing - blue flame stove.

9. 9:40 Larry Winiarski Husk Burner in Rwanda. Sawdust burner - using coffee husks.

End about 10:00 PM (more coming on three more days. Note many more slides for each presenter than I could capture [ mostly in the dark]))

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Feb 8 06:31:48 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Natural vs forced convection
In-Reply-To: <8uop10l8s9t0lhtmcr36a0qcco6fuquprl@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.2004.113148.0000.>

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:56:07 +0000, Andrew Heggie wrote:

>
>The drift of my post was that the Seebeck effect device could be
>relatively costless of energy IF the cold side could be kept above the
>temperature of the cooking food. All other devices (with the exception
>of a chimney) parasitise the heat from the cooking and reject it at a
>lower temperature than could be reused.

A quick follow up on this, a reader of the list has posted me a couple
of links for which I thank him.

CS>
CS> Here's a working unit (Russian - 1 liter):
CS>
CS> http://www.kryotherm.ru/generat_termo_bit.htm
CS>
CS> Here's another (Finnish - 1/2 liter) - looks identical but for cup
size - if I've got that right, has a battery pack charger and will
ship ... here's the rub, it's $170 + shipping (plus maybe Customs
Duty). The response to my request is here - I am still trying for
other sourcing (I need help looking as have had no luck elsewhere):
CS>
CS> http://www.teenergy.fi/engl/pl_8.htm#
CS>
CS> Supplier:"Price for one thermoelectric cup with cable and battery
charger is 170,00 USD.
CS> We can send it to you by DHL. I need to know your delivery address
so that to inform a cost for delivery.
CS> Packing dimensions is 400 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm.
CS> Weight - 3 kg."

Obviously out of court for our needs, he also mentions these modules
do appear on ebay at ~USD8, and could be built into a pot.

They may well be too fragile in unsophisticated hands but point to
possibilities for more robust materials, these current devices
actually achieve better conversions than is necessary for a stove.

Paraphrasing CS's comments:

On the surface it looks like this could be used with a chargeable cell
and fanned draught stove with no modifications, in the absence of the
rechargeable cell then a small hand cranked blower would set it
running.

The implication of these thermo modules in the developing world is
that they may provide sufficient electricity for very modest IT needs
without the need of surface telephone wires or grid electricity, I
take it electricity for this use has a far higher utility than other
uses (apart from possibly refrigeration) in the domestic environment??

They also look interesting for people running a few hundred Kw of
heating in cold bits of continental climates, Canada maybe Greg?

My current cell phone stays alive on about 4.7Whrs for 3 days, though
if I used it for email it would be much less, so I might infer these
modules are capable of providing this in excess of cooking needs if
daily cooking time was in the order of 2 hours.

AJH

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Feb 8 22:16:10 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Notes on the Ethos Stoves Workshop - Day 1
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.2004.221610.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Thank you Ron. Great notes. That was a busy day.

My question (E 5 below) was whether the http://www.cookstove.net website
that contains much of the earlier stoves work would be maintained or added
to. Piet Visser's reply was that BTG would need funding to improve the
site. Either way it's a great resource.

Tom

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:20:21 -0700, Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
wrote:

>Stovers: The following is now exactly a week old - notes I took as the
Ethos workshop took place. On subsequent days, I will try to get the
remaining three days out to the stoves list as well.
>
> Thanks to Tom Miles for his summary of a few days ago. I will try
some summary comments myself at the end of these four days.
>
> Trying to be accurate and give full names - but Ethos will send out a
list of e-mail addresses. Not everyone attending is on "stoves" - so hope
that others will send this if it seems appropriate. My main interest here
is to let "stovers" know what was happening - acting as a reporter.
Corrections will be appreciated.
>
>Notes on ETHOS Meeting; Seattle January 31, 2004
>
>A. Pre-Coffee Period
>
>1. Mark Bryden began at 8:20 with intros - the Ethos Board of Lisa,
Don, Tami, Dean (Secr.); Rogerio, Jim (? - Not here);
>
>2. Professor Bill Randolph from Northwest College, Dean Still and Lisa
Buttner (Conference Chair) also gave Welcomes and noted the importance of
the meeting.
>
>3. Mark: gave the Ethos Dues, next conference - dues for $60; student
$10; Foreign (Developing country) -$10.
>
>4. Committee Reports
>
>a. Ceramic Materials - Damon Ogle
>
>b. Central America - Stewart Conway
>
>c. Conference - 2005 (More Universities joining Ethos)
>
>d. Stoves Camp - Dean Still. 22 people in attendance. Highlight -
Larry's Gasifier Ford Truck
>
>e. Solar Cooker (Integrated - also Haybox) - Bruce Stahlburg mentioning
Jack Anderson, introducing Barbara Knudsen; Solar Cookers Int'l
>
>f. Africa - Crispin - mentioned Anglo Rustin Mines; Probec
Commercialization success, John Davies, Paul Anderson.
>
>g. Refugee Stoves - Larry Winiarski - collapsible; Ken Goyer, Damon Ogle-
bricks - $1.00 - self firing being worked on.
>
>h. Asia - Tami , several Slides, showing Kim Oanh, Thailand; Chandra
Venkataraman, IIT Mumbai; Bo Yiyun, Beijing; Slide 2- Non University
ARECOP; RWEDP
>
>i. Outreach - Tom Miles; noting help from Priya Karve, Kirk Smith
(transmittal from Tami), Grant Ballard-Tremeer; Breath Easy Network (Shell)
>
>i. Safety - Mark Bryden (noted paper discussed especially on Day #3)
>
>j. Ethos Promotional - Scott; no new work
>
>k. Cookpot Effectiveness; Charcoal - no reports
>
>l. Field Tests - Patrick Flynn
>
>m Emissions Stove Testing - Dean Still; acknowledged work with Tami.
High quality testing will be possible soon.
>
>n. Foundation Support - Dana Charron. Noted difficulty in sending funds
abroad
>
>
>o. Video - Tom Miles. Has abundant content - but no video. Need
volunteer videographer.
>
>p. Tools - Ken Goyer (wood splitting)
>
>5. Comments - Rogerio on ARECOP - "impressed" . Others seeing benefits
of Regional Conferences
>
>
>
>B. Session 2 after coffee
>
>1. Brenda Doroski US EPA - working from a PPt. Her interest - social
marketing. Have established 4 priority areas : barriers, markets, design
criteria, exposures. There are now many partners (Not all in "stoves"
area). EPA is actively recruiting other countries. Described a meeting
in New York - May 2003 - and several others, Mexico, India. They are
presently reviewing 32 Pilot Project Grant applications - out of 91
submitted. These are due Tuesday - awards to be made in April 2004 ($50k -
$150k). There will be (in Italy) a March 2004 Workshop with WHO and
Shell Foundation. She provided 6 Measures of Success which I did not get
down.
>
>2. Karen Westley; Shell Foundation. Program is called "Breathe Easy".
Maybe programs later in Kenya and Ghana. But now 4 places: Mexico,
Guatemala, India, Ethiopia (all described in later days). Successive
slides entitled "Target driven vs. demand driven"; "Price Subsidy vs
Consumer finance"; "Renewables vs. full menu"; "Technology Vs
CVP"; "NGOs/government vs. enterprises".
>
> Other slides and discussion: "Benefit of hindsight - India
Programme"; "Business proposition - To sell a product.." China, Panda
Stove (kerosene)"; "Kenya Breathe Easy Fund"; the Shell approach
>
>C. After Break (10:40) - Brief 5-10 minutes reports
>
>1. Dean Still - report on Last summer's camp; Credit given to Sam
Baldwin; acknowledged errors in some past testing. Present
recommendation - test with 15 minutes high; 45 minute low (6:1 ration
turndown recommended). Problems with using only PHU. Noted work in India
and China - VITA's difficulty in doing test (espec. for novice testers)
>
> Much of total energy is needed for simmering, but much testing now
ignoring low power needs.
>
>2. Damon Ogle - on the need for a standard pot - now working with Rob
Bailis (UC Berkeley). Recommends standardizing on an Emergency Relief
Pot - used in a UN 5 person emergency kit 7.5 liters , stainless. Prefers
use of specific consumption.
>
>3. Stove Safety - Mark Bryden. Started with a Photo of Pune (India)
stove - 600 years old. Noted possible ANSI approach (a first world
approach). Could give stoves some number of stars for safety.
>
>4. Dale Andreatta - Thermal Properties of Lightweight Ceramics.
Discussed handout showing three thermal properties: Density, Specific
heat (all materials about the same); thermal conductivity. Excellent
analytic study that hopefully will be put up on the "stoves" site by Tom
Miles.
>
>5. Dana Charron - Evaluating the Eco-Stove (CEIHO - Center . Health).
ESMAP (with Rogerio, Nicaragua) ; limited budget and timeline ($15k). Two
different stoves - compared to open fire. (one semi open - both with
chimney)
>
>6. Tami Bond. Noted distinctions between Emissions Vs. exposure;
Mentioned Grant Ballard-Tremeer's thesis work; need both CO and PM; Best
to do in real time. Sees need for work at three levels -
>
>I. In-field monitoring - confirm improvements, rapid feedback. Not being
done by Tami (some by Kirk).
>
>II. Stove design Lab - evaluate design choices, demonstrate emission
improvements. Hood; Pollutants (CO via NDIR), PM via light
scattering; CO2, O2. Data acquisition - computerized.
>
>III. High end (University) testing - validate, less-expensive .
Outstanding questions ("Amazing that these still exist):
>
>Chimney, Representativeness, Confirmation (what is minimum amount of
measurement to ensure an effective stove)
>
>End at 11:53 (asked to eat early to accommodate College weekend schedule.)
>
>
>
>D. Cooking Technologies (start at 1:15) Series of short reports
>
> 1.. Priya Karve - Biogas - residential application. 25 liters from 50
gm. "blue flame revolution."
> 2.. Wilfred Pimentel - Solar and integrated stoves. Working in Rwanda.
on both rocket stove and solar cooker. Mentioned Bolivia - Dave Whitfield
> 3.. (1:42) Agua Das (replacing Tom Reed) Gasification. 300 BTU /
ft3. Discussed separation of functions.
> 4.. Harry Stokes - Ethanol stove. Formerly Electrolux - now Dometic
(since 2001). Project Gaia - in Nigeria flared CH4; preferred use to
convert to methanol. Recent interest also in Ethanol; 50% of can residue
disposed of improperly. Noted another similar effort called Millennium
Gelfuel. Initially Origo Co.
> 5.. Rogerio Miranda - Brazil. 50 million households; 5 Million using
wood. Now operating in a for-profit company. Has switched to using a
cast iron plancha. Moving now to 4 inch chimney pipe rather than 3 inch -
cleaning less often. Is testing the alcohol stove.
> 6.. Crispin - Reporting on his Heat-recycling stove (Vesto). Is
advocating preheating. Present Demo -$40 with tax and distributors.
3:05 - start coffee break
>
>E. Continued short reports (start 3:30)
> 1.. Krishna Prasad on Chimney and other problem areas. Noted
Downdraft. Showed some data - not published
> 2.. Pieta Visser of BTG - also formerly Eindhoven. Discussed problems
with Water boiling and fuel consumption tests. Suggests using 3kW for 25
minutes, then 1 kW. Showed comparison figures - tests vs computations.
> 3.. Piet Verhaart - also formerly Eindhoven. Ref Hassan Khan work. 7.5
kW Downdraft comparisons - fairly sooty with updraft. Using for barbecue
> 4.. Larry Winiarski start at 4:18, with nice intro by Dean Still.
Formerly at EPA - Chimneys. Discussed Lorena - good and bad points.
Instead chose metered fuel approach - rather than gasification. Credit
given to Ken Goyer and Damon Ogle. Numerous photos in various parts of
world
>5. Question period - Tom Miles - noted nice Cookstove Website at ITDG
(not sure of this site)
>
>6. Mark - What major lessons?
>
>a. Larry - meter the fuel.
>
>b. Das - Gumm's theory for blast furnaces - 3 particle diameters.
>
>7. Mark - What do we still have to learn.
>
>a. Piet Verhaart - desires c lever way to feed automatically. (Larry
said Rocket does this already)
>
>b. Visser - dissemination
>
>c. Prasad - problem with governments. Problem with costs in private
sector.
>
>8. Q - what measure of sustainability for stoves training - How much
permanent impact. A. Need for critical mass - need follow-up; one person
can be key.
>
>a. Lisa Buttner - need for training - difficult with off-the-shelf
technology
>
>b. Verhaart - asked about use by this group of the Pressure Cooker.
>
>
>
> 1.. 5:08 Self Intros to Posters
> 1.. Andreatta - Hood
> 2.. Dar - solar systems
> 3.. Anderson - gasifiers
> 4.. Tom Miles - web - now 150 Mbytes
> 5.. Dean Still - emission equipment
> 6.. Mark Bryden - on models
> 7.. Margie Pinnell (not here) - Bill Creighton (Dayton) - programs
overseas. Materials testing
> 8.. Lisa Buttner - Winrock Intl (60 countries) - their International
programs; integrated approach
> 9.. John Mitchell - Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (EPA)
> 10.. Crispin (advertising material)
> 11.. Barbara Knudsen (Solar cookers) Refugee camp experience.
Recommends greater attention to gender issues.
> 12.. Das - BEF Publications
> 13.. Mark - on future CD that will be sent out with all PPts
>Close for dinner at 5:30; Then after dinner
>
>G. Slide shows
>
>1. Peter Scott. Bread Oven 200 kg for 17 kg - $3000/YR. Got fuel
consumption down by 97%. Central Africa existing BellaRive - expensive
$700 - $1000, high maintenance (Chimney) from Kenya. Uganda 49%
efficiency WITHOUT chimney 75 liters 52 minutes - 6 kg; 36% with
chimney. Uganda - Portable rocket. Uganda - Improved Lorena. Lesotho -
Nkokonono Household stove (tin pop cans). Mozambique - clay and
vermiculite.
>
>2. Rogerio - BBC video 8:06 several weeks before the WSSD
>
>3. Stewart Conway - Video Natural Geographic few years old. Jan 2001 -
Justa
>
>4. 8:40 Don O'Neal Guatemala
>
>5. Karve - $7.50 /Serai; $1 for kilo charcoal - use 100 gms each.
>
>6. 9:10 Patrick Flynn - on light weight bricks - some deterioration *w
Damon
>
>7. Piet Verhaart
>
>8. Grant Ballard-Tremeer - Hedon - no slides - but website on line. Now
at 450 subscribers , 65% developing countries Spark Network (South
Africa) Open access.
>
>Question on kerosene vaporizing - blue flame stove.
>
>9. 9:40 Larry Winiarski Husk Burner in Rwanda. Sawdust burner - using
coffee husks.
>
>End about 10:00 PM (more coming on three more days. Note many more
slides for each presenter than I could capture [ mostly in the dark]))

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Feb 8 22:58:13 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Notes on the Ethos Stoves Workshop - Day 2
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.2004.205813.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: The following is again a week old - notes I took as the Ethos workshop took place. On subsequent days, I will try to get the two days of the EPA meeting out to the stoves list as well.

As I said before, additions and corrections will be appreciated.

Notes on ETHOS Meeting; Seattle January 31, 2004

1.. Session #1 start 8:25 Shell fundees.
1.. A. D. Karve - talked briefly of the recently cancelled Indian National Stove Program - of which ARTI had been a part (with about a dozen other tech support groups - mostly Universities and now all out of the stove business. Now have Shell Foundation support- and expanded throughout much of (later all of ) the Maharashtra state. They have broken up the state into five parts - each with two local NGO's (chosen from a list about 5 times larger). Each NGO then, after training, has contacted ten small local manufacturers (again from a longer list). These have now sold about 20 stoves each (all at full price) - meaning about 1000 stoves. There is a goal (2-years hence) of 100,000 stoves (about 5-6 models ranging from $1.50 to $11.50 - both with and without chimneys. Most or all of these groups are women's self-help groups (not quite like the Grameen bank), with members contributing 20 Rupees /month. When they reach 100,000 rupees, they qualify for a 500,000 rupee loan by a local bank. So far they have achieved (rather than usual 65 %) repayment rate of 95%. This movement is slowly spreading. To repeat, the promise to Shell is 100 businesses - each with 1000 customers; annual Shell contribution is $100,000/ - but none goes as a subsidy - so all 100 companies are intended to be continuing.
2. Don O'Neal - Guatemala; also a Shell fundee. Began with parable of two villages - showing Don's preference for that village receiving an overall boost - not just that for an improved stove. Don sees success as the village becoming healthy and self-sufficient over time. Don see network of NGOs. Initial subsidy is OK where needed.
2b. Don then introduced in-country person - Richard Grinell, who further elaborated on health - community development, education - besides stoves. Are into marketing coffee. They are dealing with 2 types of stove - have introduced 1745 plancha stoves, 1049 Rockets (Nixtamal). Now producing 300 per month. Tests with Hobo (prev. 130 ppm CO) - now usually 1-2. Data shows Guatemala has 6.6 Million in poverty, so there is a need for urgency.
Peter asked them to explain marketing. Answer - lots of ways - full price, some subsidy, (try to avoid giveaway). Q - production limited? A. No (NGOs get money in March); Q cost? A $49 , sell $65 ; To install $100 - get two stoves, including Rocket costing about $12.

3. Stewart Conway - Trees Water People. Also Shell Foundation grantee. Numerous slides of Honduras. Uses local NGO. Stove program emphasizes need to protect forest, Daily cost $.50 to $1.00 for wood. Ash insulation - Maybe 6". Now adding about 1000 per year.
Q. Costs? A. Provide $40 materials, owner puts in $20 and labor (about ? day * 2). Average wage = $2/day.
Stuart - need Rocket costs (now $5) - down to $1.00. Chimney at $7. Baldosa tile lasts up to 3 years. Rogerio Miranda noted that in Nicaragua - 5% used improved stove. Need to break through.
4. (at 9:30) Omar Masera and Rudolfo Diaz GIRA (Mexico), CIEGO, UC Berkeley. Need expressed to a multiple fuel approach (ladder). Conventional wisdom is for a quick switch; No - there is use of multiple fuels. They described a Systemic approach: Integrated dissemination program. This includes technology intervention/ users involvement/financing/monitoring. There is a large use of fuel wood - 80% in rural areas. The team has developed priority areas. They provided some of their history since 1985. Their stove is called "Patsari" (indigenous word meaning "takes care of environment"). They are working with 30 builders, 50 stoves each - in Michoacan State (with UC-Berkeley). Previously did self construction - no mold. Now use a mold.

Prev. problem with chimney re-placement. Now taking 2 hours with a mold costing $60. Cost = $16 + $14 labor). Have found a 60% fuel savings in tortilla making. Are trying two builders per village. Mentioned "Tanda" - microcredit. Patzcuaro - Dec. Shell meeting.

5. Lisa Buttner of Winrock . Discussed work in Mindanao (AMORE = Alliance for Mindanao Off-grid Rural Electrification). Initially no cooking data - in major survey. Anecdotal: IAP is a problem. They are developing techniques now to do survey of 40 HH in 3 areas, monitoring 30 HH in each area. 90 HH - cost technique.

6. (10:15) Jiwan Acharya --- Biogas dissemination in Nepal (also a Winrock employee). Technology: Dome type (sizes 4, 6, 8, 10 m3). For 6 m3 size - 1.5 m3 for gas, rest for liquid. Reasons for success - low maintenance - efficiency of gas. Present status = 120 k plants, 110 BSP - room for 6 million plants. 97% are operating ; 65% are toilet-attached. 80% are small (4 or 6 m3). The calculate an average IRR = 49 %. Cost of plant = $350 with some subsidy. BSP controls quality. Strategies - success reasons - uniform design; monitoring quality control, ISO 9001-2000; continuous R&D; outreach and awareness program. Technique: builders find clients, then subsidy ($100) (The $100 ensures quality); microcredit; (6% interest). Achievements - 49 private biogas companies, 13 workshops mobilized. 5000 persons trained. Benefits: displace 3 tons firewood each. Fertilizer output = 1.75 tons per year. Cited health benefits - with use of Kirk Smith table - showing Biogas best. Challenges - Not reaching poorest. Q- Effects of T? (Ans. 77 - 8800 m max; 2500 m is OK.

(Break): Back at 10:50

B. Second group working with Shell.

1.. Patrick Flynn (TWP). 6 mos dry season for El Coco, 600 homes. Meeting required for purchase. Materials delivered. Preference for Rocket, simpler, faster, more efficiency. Stove "mafia" (photo of 11). Shouldn't use builders as follow-up. Better for women's group to women's group. Says there is trust for Peace Corps volunteers. Stewart noted - that in 1998 - men asked them to stay away from their women.

2.. Patara - Development Alternatives Energy Services for Village Households and Livelihood Enterprises (in Bundelkhand, India). Good PPt. (also under Shell contract). One activity - Ceramic rooftiles - selling a service (delivered at the doorstep). Now have 240 self help groups (2400 families). Interested in TFM (Tech, finance, marketing) barriers. Problem of down-time (100 days per year of work). Discussion of Lighting - electrification - mostly kerosene with bottle and wick. Costs of $3-$6/mo for cooking lighting - about 20% of income.

3.. Dr. Chandra Joshi, Professor, Nepal (PULCHOWK CAMPUS) Developed Activities on Improved Cook Stoves in Nepal. (Aside - Now interested in Hydrogen coupled with Microhydro (typically used only for few hours for lightning) - working with Bryan Willson at CSU). Have standardized on one type of stove, Danida. Many PPt slides on national program. Issues: not acceptable in all communities, Selection of promoters can backfire, Lack of awareness by consumers, Transportation, Can't handle bigger pots, Not enough space heating, Cultural constraints (orientation of chimney). 75,000 ICS have been installed 90% satisfied. Q use molds? - A. Yes

C. Afternoon Sessions

4 questions for 6 small groups of about 10 each

1.. What's new? (starting)
2.. What should we do? (in one year) (we as Ethos)
3.. What are goals? (same Q)
4.. What committees/groups/ do we form? (What mechanisms?)
5.. (Example - Dean and stove Camp)
After discussion, there was a report from each of the six groups, followed by a discussion of reformulating the Ethos committees. All the scratch notes were taken by Mark and his helpers - and this should appear in an organized form soon. Each of us could sign up at the end for one or more Committees
Some ideas from my very-scattered notes: an Ethos journal, need for manufacturing expertise, a time path (Long range), have a Bad Image - need to do PR, competitions; Chimneys - reliability; bricks, standards; Dissemination; Funding; Incl more women, more women's issues; Models;

Tom Miles suggested using regional interest as a piece of data - have a single International Committee. Seems likely we will head towards regional "Stoves Camps"

Keep Refugee stove group; Multifuels; Funding outreach; Tools - Ken Goyer; Standardization; Efficiency, Tech Geeks - University Modeling;

A Final List of Committees was put on the Black board and all present were able to sign up - just as the meeting closed.

This was followed by a demonstration of a half-dozen stoves.

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Tue Feb 10 01:41:57 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Notes on the EPA (Not Ethos) Stoves Workshop - Day 1
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.2004.234157.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: The following is again a week old - notes I took as the EPA (not Ethos) workshop took place. Tomorrow, I will try to get the 2nd and last day of the EPA meeting out to the stoves list as well.

As I said before, additions and corrections will be appreciated.

Notes on EPA Meeting; Seattle Northwest College, Monday, February 2, 2004

(The attendees were a somewhat reduced group from those attending the previous Ethos meeting. Two new attendees were Liz Bates (ITDG) and Kirk Smith (UC-Berkeley). Although still at Northwest College, this meeting was conducted in a large gymnasium - with about 7-8 tables around which about 8 persons could sit.)

1.. Session #1 start 8:30 The meeting was started by Brenda Doroksi and John Mitchell of EPA (see http://www.sdp.gov/initiative/cei/28306.htm
1. They gave some background, but quickly asked: "What was most interesting about the Ethos Meeting?"

Responses, among others, were given by Das, Piet Verhaart, Dale Andreatta.

2. Prasad provided an Introduction (Fig 1 of his book with Verhaart), which showed categories such as Needs (food, pans, time); Local reources (fuel, material, skills); Safey and Health (burn hazards, fire hazards, smoke); Comfort; Social (customer?) considerations - lower left

3. Kirk Smith - started by showing cover of a report (?) "Biomass Stoves: Energy, Health, and Climate". He gave credit to Eindhoven - and ran through numerous slides. Gave health statistics - saying Global Importance 10-15% , up to 85% in developing countries. Stated wood is still most important fuel for majority of the world. Slides given on Health, respirable particles, 1.6 million premature deaths; second most important after poor water/sanitation; said that recent attempt to bring all sorts of health data together had required him to throw out much data on some likely causes of death due to stoves. Some slides on Global Warming and impacts of CH4, CO and other hydrocarbon emissions. It appears that stoves are causing 4-8% of all human generated global warming; significant contributor to Black Carbon; interesting slides on efficiencies, in India - 11% non combusted; particle size distribution - graph; stove interventions appear to be cost effective for GHG reduction. Recommendations: Better ventilation; Better stoves; Better fuels. Asked about Open combustion stoves - Can they ever be recommended for household use? Specifically concerned about abnormal operation. Showed historical down-draft stove from 1686 Trans Royal Society May. Mentioned: Combination cooking-heating; Improved plancha in Guatemala; China. Noted that less fuel can lead to more pollutuon; possible value of small blowers; Issues of charcoal and CO

Conclusions Difficult to burn; GWP is important, need good combustion efficiency; significant engineering challenges remain; Final slide on different spects of wood use: to chop wood consumes about 20 kJ/kg, to burn it about 20 MJ/kg; GW impact about 20 GJ/kg - a forcing factor of 1000.

Q2. What are the benefits of working together to accomplish this charge?

Comments by Stewart, Mark, Liz, Don (Need for large scale manufacture), AD Karve (Ray Wijawardene - gasifiers, large crowds - use of electricity as good cooking option), Rogerio (comparison to NASA; issue of not waiting for holy grail); Crispin

John Mitchell asked for reactions to words like 1. Negative - "can't do", obstacles, limitations, avoid blame, problems to fix. 2. Positives - can do, opportunities, action, commitment, connections, cooperation, action, commitment

B. Short Presentations On 5 postulated key categories for success

1.. Reliability .. Stuart Conway - last longer; operate repeatability; maintenance; (built in); consistent with $2.00 price?, follow up ; need for improvement from observations.
Q - Debra and John then asked "What other characteristics?" and "What principles might we use to ensure reliable technology and fuels. (now about 10:00). After meeting for short time, the 9 tables of about 6-8 persons reported back using one-idea answers like: 1. Move toward ISO-9000 certification (Ex. Nepal); 2. Procedures (?); 3 - quantity and supply of fuel (multiple fuel stove); 4 - Culturally appropriate (want to use); 5 - Works well; 6 - Meets need of cook; 7 - Meets user's expectations (Lisa); 8 - materials, procedures (Don); 9 - OMR - Operations, Maintenance and Repair (Stewart)

2. Efficiency (Supposed to start at 10:00 - actually 10:40)

a. Dean Still (Aprovecho) (10 Principles): Insulation, Size, Metering fuel, High velocity, Heat Transfer (Baldwin),Etc, etc.

b. Peter Scott (GTZ) Supports institutional stove and bakery production; Repeat earlier slide show. 300 kg of wood down to 5 for 17 kg of bread

c. Richard Grinell (Helps) Using fiberglass molds; trying to increase volume; training; quality (human factor) , inconsistency of labor

Again group breakouts and reports with words like: gap width, Insulation, Ease of cleanability, Adjustible air, Turn down, Training, release into cooking chamber, Match technique to task; Avoid hot spots, Process fuel, ease in metering, life cycle approach, solar offsets fuel use., Efficiency vs effectiveness, preheating and vortex ideas, forced draft, food preparation, Measurements in field will not match those in laboratories.

(Break for lunch about 12:00)

3. Cleanliness Afternoon start at 1:15

a. Rogerio Miranda - Ecostove: Start 1993 on Stoves; micrograms per m3 - dropped from 500's to 50's; Need for researchers to use stoves yourself (same for solar cookers)

b. Priya Karve - gaseous fuels attractive - conventional, gasifiers, biogas; for 4 m3, - large space, in India - 1.5 million large units; instead - using flour and sugars is possible (see AD's report)

c. Larry Winiarski:

1.. Use a chimney
2.. Galvanized - usually 1 year life; with care and regular cleaning - maybe 3 years.
3.. Plea for more thought on cheap chimney with easy cleaning
4.. downplaying of new stoves by kerosene suppliers etc.
5.. don't use dampers
6.. $10 for 10 feet (incl elbow and cap)
7.. cement blocks, half block; chicken wire
d. Piet Verhaart - downdraft experience
1.. Not effective in water boiling (too tall)
2.. Barbecue - fuel wastng
3.. Better - baking and hot plate
Overview

1.. Continuous improving and updating
2.. Redicovering old lessons
3.. Using technologies yourself - live with
4.. Importance of maintenance
5.. Environment - consider safety of large heavy chimneys
6.. Crispin - factor of 3 should be used in lifetime over payback time
7.. Clean fuels
After groups had met: Chimney can be bad - too much draft; Kitchen design - hood; Preconditioning food; Karve - Burn the gas, not the biomass; use electricity; 6:1 secondary air to primary; verify cleanliness; consider catalytic convertor; solar energy; look at successful modern stoves (Jotul as an example); Preheating air, vortex; Radiation conservation - insulating refractory; Edge effects; Holey briquetes; ISO 14000-environment stds; ADD Test kit; don't use pitchwood; avoid leakage, look at the product of stoves* people* lifetime; need guidance on what cleanliness is; victims are differentially vulnerable - pregnant women as an example; Is there an optimum excess air ratio?; Education needed on cleaning chimneys - don't tolerate dirty chimneys

4. Safety -

a. Don O'Neal; showed Graphic photos of burns hands, eye, hair fire; sloshy - scalding;

b. Mark Bryden handed out sheet proposed as a starting point for safety "certification" or grading: Best Metal T<65; Glass T< 85F Porce;ain T < 95F - categories of Good, Poor, etc; Sharp Edges; concern on Open flames near fuel magazine - wood sparks/Popping; Metric for angular displacemnt (degrees) for tippability; Nearby structures

c. Reports for discussion tables: words like these: mosquitos, protection of steel from indoor stoves; Chimney compatibility; Nightime smoldering - backdraft issues; questioning temperature rise of importance - preference for absolute temperature limit; Briquettes from polluted sources; Pollution in processed fuels; Indoor Air Partnership Governments; agreement on publishing rapidly.

5. Final Afternoon ReCap

a. Comments - The interfaces between the five areas seem important also; We have gotten beyond wood stoves; There may be issues of legal liabilities; The meeting has been valuable to get so many people involved - this has saved a lot of time.

b. Slides by Prasad: based on report by Mark Cox 1995; Numerical Simulations of Indoor Air Quality;

Problems of field measurements; small samples.

2-D matrix of positions - looking at stove positions in room. Color-coded by concentrations

NICE SIMULATIONS!!

End of day shortly after 5:00

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Wed Feb 11 02:11:26 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Notes on the EPA (Not Ethos) Stoves Workshop - Day 2
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.2004.001126.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: The following is again a week old - notes I took as the EPA (not Ethos) workshop took place. This is the 2nd and last day of the EPA meeting.

As I said before, additions and corrections will be appreciated.

Notes on last day - EPA Meeting; Seattle Northwest College, Tuesday, February 3, 2004

A. start 8:35. Topic is Affordability

1. Karen Westley of the Shell Foundation (SF) starting, alternating at first with SF grantee Patara. Slide: "Partnership Mission: Improve health, livelihood, and quality of life by reducing exposure to air pollution, primarily ..."

2. "Pat" Patera - on cost of stoves and energy; Typical household costs - Dung - -10% $1.00; Firewood - 80% - collect (must bribe forest official) Rupees 150; Starter - 20 - 25 rupees; sub total = 220 to 260 rupees - $5-6. 120 -150 rupees for electricity; 6-7 liters for liquid fuels - 80 rupees; Total = 400 -450 rupees = $10/month. For 200 - 240 annual days income - this is 20% of average monthly income. Indian clients often pay by credit monthly on stove = 320 -390 rupees. A charcoal stove costs 350 to 550 rupees - this (ARTI stove?) doesn't require tending. Some Karve stoves at 75 rupees.

Mentioned Ethiopia - ethanol (presumably Harry Stokes who had left)

Stated interest in, and importance of, "value to price ratio". (presumably purchasing occurs only when > 1)

3. Dar Curtis - Solar Household Energy - Discussing access or affordability;

4. Pat listed various payment options: Payment outright; Micro banking; Other time-payment schemes; community coops in Senegal; NGO time payment; Barter for Work - (and Products added later) as practiced in Bolivia - building oven and training; Subsidy - used in Afghanistan (noting "Donor fatigue"); Charitable Distributions

(Crispin noted that in South Africa there is a tradition of time payments to the shop keeper - who approximately doubles the price that way.)

5. Omar Masera (Mexico) - also SF fundee. defined Affordable = technology that meets users expectations regarding costs, versatility, reliability, etc. Noted problem in How to make user training affordable. Noted importance of Social marketing (as cooking is not valued) - Efficiency is found to not be important (see more below). Felt that Mass production, and economies of scales will be important. Sees need for lowering the investment (upfront) cost. Also important: Incentives, Microcredit, installment payments and peer pressure. Major problem - Cooking is seen as very low value activity.

Showed a five-pointed "star" of the five EPA stove characteristics: Yesterday, chronologically: Reliability, Efficiency, Cleanliness, Safety. Today: Affordability. Added a pentagon shape for a three-stone fire (high in reliability and affordability) and an improved stove (high in other areas).

Comment from Patrick: wanted longevity as a needed characteristic.

6. After small group discussion, the Groups reported back, saying:

a. Paul: Mass production is important issue; b. there is another category - Desirable product attributes (Credit to Liz); c. Don - Emphasis on not using the term "subsidy" - Need to take a long range view - increase purchasing power and stability of society. d. Lisa: consider Accessibility = availability + affordability + awareness. e. Dean - there is value in using small stores - with the need to put out stoves on display. f. Listing of other possible value attributes: Lighting (as possible with biogas systems); Income generating or time saving; Transportable; Storable; Easily Controllable; Fast to boil; Status - providing (modern, traditional,etc); can take large pieces; Maintenance - free. Favorable characteristics of the Three stone fire were listed.

7. Additional comments: a. Some discussion of whether there should be a 6th category added to the "EPA-5". b. on Reliability: AD Karve felt 100% is required ; c. Stewart expressed interest in a longer Timeline - value in a Manufacturer's warranty; d. Bryan placed emphasis on the category of "clean".

(Lunch roughly from 12 to 1)

8. Liz Bates brief report on hoods

9. Break-up into 6 groups - by self-selection, followed by reports back by each group. Notes not complete here - but roughly following the ideas above for the five previously described EPA characteristics. Detailed "sheets" picked up by Debra and John for transcription and

10. Group 6 shared a list of "other" possible important marketing characteristics. After time spent in brainstorming on possible "other" characteristics, this group had sample "votes" in which 5 volunteered how they would place "points" for marketing a stove. These came out as:

Crispin Don Peter Karen ED

Reliability 30 - 10 10 -

Affordability 30 - 30 - - (Possibly meaning "price")

Efficiency - 20 30 30 -

Health - 30 - - 40 (incl. Cleanliness)

Safety - - - - -

Time Saving / Speed 10 30 20 20 20
Status 30 10 - 40 -

Aesthetics - - 20 - -

Income Generation - - - - 40

Totals 100 90 110 100 100 (the short time available led to these two errors in either specifying or copying the results)

On the list, but not receiving any votes were: Lighting, Size/Weight, Multiple Fuels, Equipment Compatibility (meaning pots).

Conclusions - coming from the Group 6 ("other/value") panelists

1.. "We" have no idea what is important in marketing
2.. The marketing will probably have to be Region Specific
3.. Stovers need marketing expertise
4.. The Real Issues (the "Truths") are hard to determine
5.. A qualitative study will be required
6.. There is an issue now of how to make a stove desirable to a people who have no money and do not buy fuel
Additional comments at this point made on this topic by Priya/ AD; Chandra; Liz Bates; Lisa Buttner; Pat; Omar; Damon; Rogerio

11. John - Asked the question: "How do we increase the use of clean, reliable, efficient, and safe stoves." - Slide shown saying: ""Requests and Offers by the leaders in this room are the key to improving indoor air quality in your community."

a. Rogerio - will translate into Spanish

b. Dean - will be working on a coating for Chimneys with ____

c. Paul Anderson - hopes to work with Karves

d. Liz - HEDON is working to identify successes and failures - see questionnaire on web site.

e. Myself - will be working to assist Jiwan on biogas promotion on "stoves"

f. Crispin - with Bryden (math model of VESTO (fuel oriented - turn-down ratio.) excess production during downturn

g. Tami - Will be monitoring more.

h. Invitation given to join "Partnership for Clean Air"

i. Lisa and lots of others - many thanks to the 4-day organizers.

Ron - The end of the meeting and my reporting came at about 3:00, as many of us raced off to catch planes.

I hope others will fill in the many blanks I didn't capture.

I'm sure the EPA and SF would appreciate additional "votes' from both attendees and non-attendees on how to handle their respective stove programs.

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Feb 11 21:09:00 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Fw: gasifier stove
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.2004.180900.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

This should be of interest to the list

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "tulin keskin" <tkeskin@eie.gov.tr>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:12 AM
Subject: gasifier stove

Dear sir
I am writing from Turkey National Energy Conservation Center. I would like
to have more info about gasifier stove,their working principles,
fuels,efficiency, cost etc. Thank you very much for your cooperation in
advance.
Best Regards

T?lin KESK?N(Ms)

office: 0312 295 52 35
mobile 0532 377 61 03

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Feb 12 12:01:34 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Capacitors and TED Was: [STOVES] Natural vs forced convection
In-Reply-To: <20040128150611.GA16569@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.2004.110134.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Harmon and all,

The TED (Thermo-Electrical Device) that I bought (called Radio Lantern) can
certainly start generating current very quickly, as soon as some reasonable
heat starts to flow.

With the small gasifiers (and other stoves could also do this), we commonly
use some "starter" such as alcohol-soaked chips or pellets, or some
"gel-fuel" or kerosene-soaked something (corn cobs, etc.) or any of many
other substances. That initial heat, even before the main burning starts,
should be sufficient to drive the TED (or TEG or TEM, as sometimes
called). But TED's are not yet "inexpensive" enough for use in developing
countries. So the conversation must relate to possible user who have
sufficient funds to have a more-than-minimal stove.

About capacitors, I am interested in more information, especially as it
relates to
1. Driving a small fan
2. Providing "spark" to re-ignite the secondary combustion in a gasifier,
(if the combustion goes out, the temp drops, and a sensor sends a signal to
"send spark".)

I looked at the two web-sites about capacitors, and realize that, although
simple devices, they are "not my cup of tea."

ANYONE interested in working on "Capacitors for small stoves", and possibly
NOT charged via TED's but charged by some other means. ??? After we find
some co-workers, we can then take the discussion off of the whole Stoves
List serve.

Paul

At 09:06 AM 1/28/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Yes, a peltier device is a thermoelectric generator, or at least one
>form. We've discussed these before, and they keep getting better and
>cheaper. Since capacitors are fairly easy to make, I'd think a fairly
>large one
>could be made in the bottom of a "tin-can" type stove fairly easily, although
>I'm not sure how heat affects them. You'd probably have to have a fairly good
>insulating layer between it and the actual fire pot.
>
>There are quite a few websites with info on TEGs:
>http://www.peltier-info.com/generators.html
>http://www.hi-z.com/websit07.htm
>
> And also quite a few on home-brewing capacitors, easily made from
> aluminum or
>copper sheet with polyethelene in between.
>
>http://deepfriedneon.com/tesla_cap1.html
>http://www.hills2.u-net.com/tesla/tccap.htm
>
> for instance. I'm not at all sure this would really work, just an idea,
> but it
>could possibly solve the battery problem for 3rd world use, since only the TEG
>and fan motor would have to be bought. Obviously very powerful capacitors
>can be
>made at home, what I'm not sure of is whether the TEGs would provide enough
>power to recharge it enough to actually run the fan before the fire got hot
>enough to energize the TEG.
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:56:25PM -0600, a31ford wrote:
> > Harmon and all,
> >
> > I don't know if anyone on the list is aware, there is an item called a
> > "peltiere" device, which converts heat to electricity.
> >
> > Here in Canada, there are a lot of wood stoves (for heating) and most
> people
> > that I know that have a wood stove, also have at least one of these
> devices.
> > http://www.survivalunlimited.com/fans.htm or
> > http://www.northlineexpress.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=5CF-800
> >
> > I am NOT supporting any of these links, simply listing them if,
> > a person wants to see what I'm talking about.
> >
> > I realize that the units at these websites would not work "existing"
> but the
> > methodology is what is important.
> >
> > Greg Manning
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

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

From karabi_d at SIFY.COM Fri Feb 13 09:27:46 2004
From: karabi_d at SIFY.COM (Dutta)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Fw: gasifier stove
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.2004.195746.0530.KARABID@SIFY.COM>

Dear Ms. T?lin KESK?N,

I learnt about your interest in gasifier stoves from Tom Miles, through the
stove list. I would recommend you to go through these two sites mentioned
below.It may be of some help to you.

http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/view/625/forum.htm

http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/view/624/forum.htm

All the best,
Karabi Dutta.

--
Dr.Karabi Dutta.
Breathe Easy Network India http://india.shellfoundation.net
About me:
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/User:KarabiDutta
Email me at: karabi@shellfoundation.net
---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: gasifier stove

> This should be of interest to the list
>
> Tom Miles
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tulin keskin" <tkeskin@eie.gov.tr>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:12 AM
> Subject: gasifier stove
>
>
>
> Dear sir
> I am writing from Turkey National Energy Conservation Center. I would like
> to have more info about gasifier stove,their working principles,
> fuels,efficiency, cost etc. Thank you very much for your cooperation in
> advance.
> Best Regards
>
> T?lin KESK?N(Ms)
>
> office: 0312 295 52 35
> mobile 0532 377 61 03

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Feb 15 13:26:43 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.112643.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

The March issue of Scientific American, on pp 68-77, has the best short summary of global warming that I have read. I was surprised that the author, James Hansen, reported that even the lowest of the IPCC's CO2 and temperature projections is probably too high based on recent progress.
But I also was surprised that he feels that: "Based on the paleoclimate evidence, I suggest that the highest prudent level of additional global warming is not more than about one degree C. This means that additional climate forcing should not be more than about one watt per square meter." (p 75)
His argument is mostly based on rapidly melting icecaps - which the IPCC has not adequately considered, he says. He says:" Although building of glaciers is slow, once an ice sheet begins to collapse, it demise can be spectacularly rapid".
But he also notes that the IPCC's minimum (about 2 watts/sqm) current trends path is twice this allowable maximum (p76). He then claims that a path with emphasis on efficiency and renewables can stay below his allowable forcing function and temperature rise.
Of course, others have said similar things, no matter how well he makes the case. The reason I bring this up for "stoves" is the heavy (I count seven mentions) emphasis he places on the words "soot" and "black carbon aerosols" - which have not been covered by the Rio Convention. But we know (especially after Seattle) that particulates are major outputs of stoves - and of even some improved stoves. The reason for failure to understand the magnitude of the impact of stove impacts is a lack of experimental data - which our own Tami Bond has been working on (maybe alone!!) for many years.
Hansen also mentions that work on these aerosols will have benefits in the health area (where Kirk Smith has been concentrating his stove efforts) and on agricultural productivity (a topic we have not discussed enough). Although Hansen never uses the word "stoves", he almost does. I therefore see this article as a major new plus for us putting more pressure on governments and foundations to support deployment of improved stoves.

To sum up, Hansen shows that Global Warming is real, prompt attention is necessary and much better than doing nothing, and that soot is a major (second behind CO2) contributor. With CH4 being #3, improved biomass stoves can impact the three highest contributors to what can adversely impact a vast majority of the world's poor.

Ron

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Feb 15 15:12:52 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: A Few Thoughts on Karve visit to Colorado
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.131252.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

1. At the end of the two Seattle meetings which I described last week, A.D. and Priya Karve accepted an earlier invitation to spend a few days in Colorado prior to their return. My ulterior motive was that they influence others in Colorado like they have influenced me.

2. On the first morning we had breakfast with some who are pushing rural renewable energy cooperatives in Colorado. What the Karves are already doing in Maharashtra state is somewhat similar. This Bill did well in its first test vote in one Committee. Our farm areas have found renewable energy in a big way this year over last.

3. In the afternoon we met in Ft. Collins with Bryan Willson (also at Seattle) to view his really excellent CSU automotive emissions test laboratory. Agreements have been made to test one or more of the Karve stoves. Without trying to speak for Bryan, I can say that potential funders would do well to use more of this CSU capability. Bryan and other testers like Dean and Tami can do only so much without outside funding.

4. Then the two Karves gave a well received graduate-level seminar to mostly Mechanical Engineers - on the two subjects that the Karves covered in Seattle:
a. The in-field pyrolysis of ag wastes.
b. The production of methane from waste starches and sugars

Both ideas were well received and good questions received. I am sure we will be hearing more on these from the Karves through Tom Miles' site, so I won't try here.

5. We struggled back through a snow storm (seeing four accidents) to have dinner with "stoves" list member Ralph Overend - the top-ranked Biomass scientist at NREL (and one of the major consultants for the Shell Foundation - on larger scale biomass projects). I missed some of the dialog (to bring my wife), and have no notes, but recall a very valuable dialog - especially on the social side of achieving stoves distribution (which I have alluded to in earlier messages - and some more below).

6. The next day, we accomplished some more talking and shopping, seeing some local tourist sites, and then had a nice two hour seminar (set up by Ralph Overend and NREL's International Leader - Debra Lew) on the same two subjects given above in #4. This time I learned more detail and more emphasis on the several groups that ARTI is using to achieve their distributions under the Shell Foundation (and some Indian Government) grant. Agua Das and Paul Anderson had not yet returned from Seattle, but Tom Reed and two others working on the forced air small gasifier stove were among those able to hear this presentation.

7. Last Friday, we got up early for a trip to the airport and their long trip back to Pune. One important topic on the way was learning about their past and future plans to find modern ways to use bamboo in local home construction.

8. A.D has alerted me to two errors in my earlier reports

a. "the charcoal from sugarcane leaves costs about USCents 20 per kg and not $1 as reported by you. In Indian Rupees, it is Rs.10 per kg."

(I am reminded to say here that the Karves are moving away from the "(19?) hole briquette" and the "slotted hockey puck" versions we also saw pictured in Seattle. Now they are developing a longer thin "segmented bar" (like some candy bars), which can be broken into smaller sizes. (And which now travel very well). More pressure can be applied with a rolling pin, so the density can be made higher. The users are instructed to fill their fuel bed area with these pieces and they still obtain the same improvements from the "holey" effect. I had thought there would be some problem with reduction in the gaps - but was assured that there is sufficient ash that the size of the small "bricks" does not change much. They are looking for ways to utilize this ash.

b. "This is about the women's self help groups that you mentioned in my part of the report. The group decides on the monthly contribution, taking into
consideration the ability of the members to pay. The amount of Rs. 20 was
mentioned by me only as an example. Secondly, the banks want the
contributions to be deposited with them regularly for a period of two years.
After the two years are over, the banks loan 4 times as much money back to
the group. The amount of Rs. 100,000 was mentioned by me only to illustrate
my point. There is no such limit laid down by the banks."

(We should also talk more about this aspect of the Karve work. The main issue that I heard from one of the audience I have listed above is that it is not clear that the ARTI success can be replicated - as there are few if any other groups like ARTI around (in India or elsewhere). I hope that funders will attempt to find this out - and to use the ARTI approach (finding local NGO partners (2 each in 5 Maharashtra regions in the SF program) who each find local entrepreneurs ( 2 to 5 working with each NGO ? - who find the eventual 100,000 customers that they are now projecting in 2 more years. I believe that both the NGOs and the entrepreneurs have considerable if not total allowed flexibility. There are few business-style rules. Whatever works for the "lower-level" participants is fine - presumably as long as it has been working in the past.))

9. The Karves are planning another Pune stoves conference in about 2 years - and I recommend it.

10. It was a pleasure to have the Karves in Golden and to get into a little more, but still not enough, depth.

Ron

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun Feb 15 16:42:54 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Ceramic fiber
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.154254.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

I was reading at the following website:

http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Dream/paper-grover.htm

which said
&&&&&&&&&&&
Apart from achieving complete combustion, it is also desired to minimize
these losses which can be achieved by using proper light-weight and
effective insulation. For this insulation an optimum use of ceramic fibre
blanket of 25 mm thick is recommend for a "Dream Stove".
Ceramic fibre blankets have very low thermal conductivity, about 16% of any
dense refractory material, are light weight (65 - 192 kg/m3) and extremely
cost effective. The relative cost of ceramic fibre blanket of 25mm
thickness is about 20 percent of an equivalent 135 mm dense refractory.
Ceramic fibres can withstand temperatures up to 13000 C compared to mineral
wool upto 7000 C and glass fibre upto 4500 C. Use of ceramic fibre can
drastically improve the performance of a cookstove.

&&&&&&&&&&&&& end of quote &&&&&&&

Can someone please give me some info on ceramic fiber and how to get it.

Thanks,

Paul

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun Feb 15 17:04:50 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Swosthee and Boyt stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.160450.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

At the website:

http://journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html

there is a picture (scroll to it) of the "Swosthee wood-gas stoves in
Malaysia" but no further detail. Not possible to tell what are the inner
workings of those stoves. Can anyone provide details?

At the same location is a picture of Richard Boyt's "10 can stove", but it
does not look too much like the stove that Dick set up and lit for me at
his home last week. Although top-lit, Dick's stove did not develop the
access and control of secondary air as much as I usually expect to see in
such gasifiers. Any comments about the one shown on the above website?

Paul

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun Feb 15 18:22:25 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.2004.012225.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Ron and Fellow Stovers

Many thanks for drawing this timely article to our attention. It is
available to me, far as I am from you. I would like to analyse this
issue in a holistic manner so that we are not encouraging inappropriate
directions or underrating some issues.

Warming or Cooling?
As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in the
sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and all
that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand the
cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by those
who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of the
other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether it is
heating or cooling us.

We are significantly overdue for an ice age. The most recent article I
have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership in
the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population by
the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
overdue.

However, if countries want to agree on an international treaty that
assists improvement in indoor air quality (and people's lives) and
punishes polluters, it's fine by me!

Who Contributes What?
Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global warming'
made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is not
included in that number, or range 4-8%.

On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking and
heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if electricity
is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned biomass?
There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the oil
well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs in
their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the pollution
gas audit.

As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to see
it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It would
be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?

Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning imply
that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all. We
should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.

There were no calls at the ETHOS conference for people to draft plans to
get American and German and Argentine cooks to use pot heat shields
around their shiny stainless steel cookware, even though they are in a
far better position to pay for extra hardware than Guatemalan villagers.
What would an 'improved' General Electric cooking range look like? What
about an improved Sears Superweight stainless steel saucepan to reduce
the acid rain falling over the Great Lakes?

Fuel efficiency:
I built a very rudimentary coal stove that cooks and heats while
consuming less total coal than is required to generate and distribute
and equivalent amount of electric power (in South Africa). Think about
this: Everytime someone in South Africa switches from a reasonably well
designed coal stove to electricity, their coal consumption increases.
The challenge to stove builders is to see that the small stove option
generates less total pollution and then to market the stoves on the
basis of reducing total energy needed for a task.

Stovers' Concern for Global Warming
My main argument is mathematical and goes like this:
- The population of the world for a long time was about 1 billion
(stable).
- They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is used
by modern biomass-using cooks.
- The present number of people burning biomass is about 2 billion
(double)
- This is an increase of only 1 billion above the 'stable' number.
- The net contribution to any global warming from the burning of
_additional_ biomass is thus (at most) 2-4% of the total.
- At a present additional climate forcing of, say, 4 watts/M^2,
the contribution by the consumers of biomass is 0.08 to 0.16 watts
- The 1/3 of the people who, between them, contribute these 0.12
(avg?) extra watts using a renewable energy source should not be held
accountable for anything if the other 2/3 who contribute (per person)
1.94 watts are left out of the same sentence.

This is not a totally fair analysis in that part of the 1.94 watts might
be used to support the lifestyle of the biomass consumers, or equally,
it might be the other way round. Still, on balance, there is no
defensible reason to bring 'global warming' into a discussion of biomass
cooking stoves. Biomass burning is not more than 1/33 of the problem.

We see a lot of lousy devices, poor fuel preparation, inappropriate
architecture in unhealthy and dangerous environments. Yet we should not
lose sight of the fact that this is a renewable energy source and its
use should be encouraged and planned for.

So, how are we going to sell the idea of biomass fuels for the future of
mankind if we don't have better, cleaner, safer stoves? Biomass fuels
get a bad rap, even though the problem is bad devices and/or bad
management.

The future of mankind is green....air dried and well seasoned!

Regards to all
Crispin

Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
(the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)

Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)

B = Number of biomass users (in billions)
C = Concern that Stove developers should have about global warming
caused biomass fuel cookstoves (absolute)
M = # of mentions that efficient electric stoves (including hotplates)
get during Improved Cook Stove (ICS) programs run by both do-good,
do-well organizations and publicly funded initiatives
NB = Number of non-biomass fuel users - assumed to be using
non-renewable fuels (in billions)
P = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by burning
biomass
R = Portion of biomass gasses that are completely recycled into new fuel
(by molecular weight)
Rn = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by
non-renewable fuels

Calculate C For
B= 2.2
M = 0
NB = 4.4
P = 0.06 (est)
R = 0.99
Rn = 0.94

C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)

Substituting:

Amount of Concern We Should Have = (2.2 * 0 * 0.06) / (4.4 * 0.94 *
0.99) = 0 Zero!

From english at KINGSTON.NET Sun Feb 15 20:12:20 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Swosthee and Boyt stoves
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040215155647.00af3f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.201220.0500.>

Date sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:04:50 -0600
Send reply to: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
Subject: [STOVES] Swosthee and Boyt stoves
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG

Paul,
Those are pictures I posted on the origional webpage that sprung from this list. You can
see additional pictures and drawings at
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Koopmans/Swos.htm

The TenCan stove in that picture was sent to me by Dick Boyt. See:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Boyt/Tencan.htm

They were roled into Tom Miles webpage which has since "snowballed" nicely.
Alex

> Stovers,
>
> At the website:
>
> http://journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html
>
> there is a picture (scroll to it) of the "Swosthee wood-gas stoves in
> Malaysia" but no further detail. Not possible to tell what are the inner
> workings of those stoves. Can anyone provide details?
>
> At the same location is a picture of Richard Boyt's "10 can stove", but it
> does not look too much like the stove that Dick set up and lit for me at
> his home last week. Although top-lit, Dick's stove did not develop the
> access and control of secondary air as much as I usually expect to see in
> such gasifiers. Any comments about the one shown on the above website?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From english at KINGSTON.NET Sun Feb 15 20:27:27 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Ceramic fiber
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040215153914.01d24f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.202727.0500.>

Paul,
You could do a search for cerafelt or cerawool.example:
http://www.thermalceramics.com/products/categories/paperandfelt.asp
Try contarting AP Green. They sell refractories.
Alex
> Stovers,
>
> I was reading at the following website:
>
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Dream/paper-grover.htm
>
> which said
> &&&&&&&&&&&
> Apart from achieving complete combustion, it is also desired to minimize
> these losses which can be achieved by using proper light-weight and
> effective insulation. For this insulation an optimum use of ceramic fibre
> blanket of 25 mm thick is recommend for a "Dream Stove".
> Ceramic fibre blankets have very low thermal conductivity, about 16% of any
> dense refractory material, are light weight (65 - 192 kg/m3) and extremely
> cost effective. The relative cost of ceramic fibre blanket of 25mm
> thickness is about 20 percent of an equivalent 135 mm dense refractory.
> Ceramic fibres can withstand temperatures up to 13000 C compared to mineral
> wool upto 7000 C and glass fibre upto 4500 C. Use of ceramic fibre can
> drastically improve the performance of a cookstove.
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&& end of quote &&&&&&&
>
> Can someone please give me some info on ceramic fiber and how to get it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Feb 16 02:58:12 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: ETHOS Meeting Pictures on the Stoves Web
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.2004.235812.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

All,

I've posted some pictures from the stoves conference on the web. Thanks to Ken Goyer for his contributions.

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

Tom

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon Feb 16 14:24:28 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.2004.122428.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: I meant to send this earlier to all - as had Crispin. Any other
comments? Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves

> Crispin and "stovers":
>
> Yesterday you responded to my same day message saying:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > Dear Ron and Fellow Stovers
> >
> > Many thanks for drawing this timely article to our attention. It is
> > available to me, far as I am from you. I would like to analyse this
> > issue in a holistic manner so that we are not encouraging inappropriate
> > directions or underrating some issues.
>
> RWL: Crispin - it appears that you have not yet read the Sciam
article.
> I hope you will first read it before responding.
> >
> > Warming or Cooling?
> > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
> > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in the
> > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and all
> > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand the
> > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by those
> > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of the
> > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether it is
> > heating or cooling us.
>
> RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is major
> warming going on, so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief that
> this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> >
> > We are significantly overdue for an ice age. The most recent article I
> > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership in
> > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population by
> > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
> > overdue.
> >
> RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have added
> so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling. The
> cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the Hansen
> argument.
>
> > However, if countries want to agree on an international treaty that
> > assists improvement in indoor air quality (and people's lives) and
> > punishes polluters, it's fine by me!
> >
> RWL: No disagreement on IAQ. But this is an added and I think
stronger
> argument for getting big money into stoves.
>
> > Who Contributes What?
> > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
> > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
> > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
> > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global warming'
> > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is not
> > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> >
> RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated it,
it
> might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG, propane,
> or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.
>
> > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
> > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking and
> > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
> > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if electricity
> > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned biomass?
> > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the oil
> > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs in
> > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the pollution
> > gas audit.
>
> RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is definitely not
> ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is just
that
> his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> (health) and GW reasons. And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
with
> electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three stones and
> maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I am
sure
> he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
combustion
> of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> >
> > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to see
> > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It would
> > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?
> >
> RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost. I saw
> one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but to the
> best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be economic.
>
> > Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
> > About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
> > people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
> > People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning imply
> > that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
> > 'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all. We
> > should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
> > electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
> > process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.
> >
> RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on GW
> terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse. On this
> list, we have to prove that burning in affordable stoves (not power) can b
e
> better. I thnk most would agree that we have not yet proven this.
> My reason for sending the Hansen summary is to say that the
particulate
> (soot, black carbon) side of stove emissions is worse than previously
> acknowledged and that anyone interested in limited the GW forcing function
> should look at stoves as a low cost way of making improvements. We have
> almost no-one in the international scene making this point and I claim it
> can be a way to get more dollars invested in what this list is devoted to.
>
> > There were no calls at the ETHOS conference for people to draft plans to
> > get American and German and Argentine cooks to use pot heat shields
> > around their shiny stainless steel cookware, even though they are in a
> > far better position to pay for extra hardware than Guatemalan villagers.
> > What would an 'improved' General Electric cooking range look like? What
> > about an improved Sears Superweight stainless steel saucepan to reduce
> > the acid rain falling over the Great Lakes?
> >
> RWL: Good point. I suggest we first need to do a lot of work to show
> that there is a positive benefit-cost ratio for that. We had a pretty
good
> cross-section of people working on real stoves for developing countries -
> but no-one able to speak for GE and other similar suppliers. I'm not
> surprised that we didn't get to such a topic.
>
> > Fuel efficiency:
> > I built a very rudimentary coal stove that cooks and heats while
> > consuming less total coal than is required to generate and distribute
> > and equivalent amount of electric power (in South Africa). Think about
> > this: Everytime someone in South Africa switches from a reasonably well
> > designed coal stove to electricity, their coal consumption increases.
> > The challenge to stove builders is to see that the small stove option
> > generates less total pollution and then to market the stoves on the
> > basis of reducing total energy needed for a task.
> >
> RWL: Yes, your Vesto (and I guess a different coal-oriented stove)
> looks very good in this regard.
> I would like at this point to say I was very impressed by your clever
> way to control air input through the fuel-entry port in the "rocket"
version
> of your Vesto. For others who didn't or couldn't see the two different
> stoves that Crispin brought: Crispin had a row of suspended "pendular long
> steel blocks" suspended from a wire in such a way that air input was much
> reduced but sticks could still be inserted. We agreed that a lower cost
> version with ceramics should be tried - and that it was an applicable
> modification of any rocket stove that should reduce the excess air
problems
> that some see in the Rocket. Crispin pointed out that there was some
> preheating of the air as it entered past the "pendulae". Note that
Crispin
> had a very different approach from the Rocket - and was separately also
> controlling primary and secondary air in this and the earlier top-loading
> Vesto.
>
>
> > Stovers' Concern for Global Warming
> > My main argument is mathematical and goes like this:
> > - The population of the world for a long time was about 1 billion
> > (stable).
> > - They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is used
> > by modern biomass-using cooks.
> > - The present number of people burning biomass is about 2 billion
> > (double)
> > - This is an increase of only 1 billion above the 'stable' number.
> > - The net contribution to any global warming from the burning of
> > _additional_ biomass is thus (at most) 2-4% of the total.
>
> RWL: Maybe - but I'd like to see a reference or computation.
This
> has a lot to do with the uncombusted gases in cooking - which is not a
well
> documented number. I think your 2-4% might be low. In places like Sudan
> cooking is perhaps 90% of the national energy consumption. They use
mostly
> charcoal - almost all produced with venting not flaring.
>
> > - At a present additional climate forcing of, say, 4 watts/M^2,
> > the contribution by the consumers of biomass is 0.08 to 0.16 watts
>
> RWL: last number per sqm. Hansen would say your number 4 is too high
> today.
>
> > - The 1/3 of the people who, between them, contribute these 0.12
> > (avg?) extra watts using a renewable energy source should not be held
> > accountable for anything if the other 2/3 who contribute (per person)
> > 1.94 watts are left out of the same sentence.
> >
> RWL. I know of no-one saying that this is not a problem for ALL of
the
> earth's inhabitants. Clearly we in the US are some at the most at fault.
> One problem is the US has refused (stupidly in my opinion) to sign the
Kyoto
> protocols because developing countries are not required to contribute
> similarly. If Hansen is right, then perhaps stoves are one of the lowest
> cost means of starting to stabilize. The US might find it cheapest to
meet
> its quotas (if we ever sign up) by doing stove promotional work in
> developing countries.
> I am not sure if you might have meant 3.94 rather than 1.94 (or change
> earlier 4 to 2?)
>
> > This is not a totally fair analysis in that part of the 1.94 watts might
> > be used to support the lifestyle of the biomass consumers, or equally,
> > it might be the other way round. Still, on balance, there is no
> > defensible reason to bring 'global warming' into a discussion of biomass
> > cooking stoves. Biomass burning is not more than 1/33 of the problem.
> >
> RWL: Again to summarize: I believe GW can be a way to get more
> attention paid to stoves (because it can be a cheap way to improve on GW
> warming). It is an added reason, not a replacement reason. I believe GW
is
> of higher concern around the world than is IAQ. (Aside - I got into this
> business because of a concern about desertification and deforestation and
> still feels that is important. But I strongly endorse IAQ as the stoves
> driver today - thanks to Kirk Smith and a few others. If something
attracts
> more attention to stoves, I am willing to endorse it. What is new about
> Hansen is that he is taling about soot - and stoves can quickly make a
> positive change because soot has such a short lifetime in the atmosphere.
> I believe that the solution is more than 1/33 of the problem because
we
> can put more emphasis on soot - which is the #2 driver.
>
> > We see a lot of lousy devices, poor fuel preparation, inappropriate
> > architecture in unhealthy and dangerous environments. Yet we should not
> > lose sight of the fact that this is a renewable energy source and its
> > use should be encouraged and planned for.
> >
> RWL: I have said on this list that I did not think that propane, LNG,
> etc was the right solution. I strongly agree that improved biomass
> combustion is a better way to go. (My reason is that I think we are right
> about at the peak of possible world oil production. No way that the
> developing countries are going to be first in line when the supply can't
> meet demand, no matter how little theywould use.)
>
> > So, how are we going to sell the idea of biomass fuels for the future of
> > mankind if we don't have better, cleaner, safer stoves? Biomass fuels
> > get a bad rap, even though the problem is bad devices and/or bad
> > management.
> >
> RWL: No disagreement from me. But another problem is that there is
> insufficient attention to possible improvements. Agree also on your next
> sentence.
>
> > The future of mankind is green....air dried and well seasoned!
> >
> > Regards to all
> > Crispin
> >
> > Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
> > (the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)
> >
> > Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> >
> > B = Number of biomass users (in billions)
> > C = Concern that Stove developers should have about global warming
> > caused biomass fuel cookstoves (absolute)
> > M = # of mentions that efficient electric stoves (including hotplates)
> > get during Improved Cook Stove (ICS) programs run by both do-good,
> > do-well organizations and publicly funded initiatives
> > NB = Number of non-biomass fuel users - assumed to be using
> > non-renewable fuels (in billions)
> > P = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by burning
> > biomass
> > R = Portion of biomass gasses that are completely recycled into new fuel
> > (by molecular weight)
> > Rn = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by
> > non-renewable fuels
> >
> > Calculate C For
> > B= 2.2
> > M = 0
> > NB = 4.4
> > P = 0.06 (est)
> > R = 0.99
> > Rn = 0.94
> >
> > C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> >
> > Substituting:
> >
> > Amount of Concern We Should Have = (2.2 * 0 * 0.06) / (4.4 * 0.94 *
> > 0.99) = 0 Zero!
> >
>
> RWL: Obviously we only need to talk about M (being zero). The Hansen
> argument has nothing on this, nor have I ever seen this M listed as being
a
> key parameter for concern. I cannot concur that our concern about GW
should
> be linearly related to M as you have shown. I know I am stretching the
> Hansen argument quite a bit to say that soot concern should/could lead to
> more support for better stoves. But I think it much less of a stretch
than
> your dismissal of his argument about a need for urgent (!) action and your
> claiming that GW importance is so linearly related to electric cooking
> discussion amongst biomass stoves proponents. I think you have not yet
> understood how much bad stoves contribute to GW and ocean surface rise
> (especially because of soot, but all forms of incomplete combustion) and
how
> we can use this extension to get more international action. Your equation
> simply looks like a way to justify your belief that there is no connection
> between stoves and GW.
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but here's a hope that I
said
> enough more to convert you.
>
> Ron
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon Feb 16 18:26:20 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Test burning Heat Logs
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.012620.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

I managed to get a bag of Heat Logs made of sawdust. This is saying
something because we are nowhere near one of machines that make
densified biomass fuels.

The measure 63mm square with rounded corners and 247mm long. There is a
14mm hole through the centre. It weighs 866 grams.

The stove used was a Vesto fitted to be able to severly restrict the
primary air. The test started with a general 'burn' to see what it was
like and during that test I was able to try different loadings and check
the power output.

This evening I tried a boiling test which was again still a look-see
before trying something more well documented with accurate weights and
all. I feel it is worth reporting this test.

It was clear from the first test that putting on the whole Log was going
to be a problem - it has far too much heat output to use all at once.
This time I broke it into 3 pieces. Two were about 95mm long and the
last one was about 60mm long. The Heat Log started easier than I
thought it would so tonight I tried using _only_ a coating of candle wax
on the top of a large piece, then turned the unit on its side. This
almost worked but eventually it went out so I went back to my regular
routine of lighting a small fire of twigs and dropping two parts of the
log into it. I put in the small piece and one of the larger ones.

This turned out to be a mistake. It was still too much fuel and the
flames were quite unnecessarily high. Undeterred by the pyrotechnics I
decided it would be a good time to do a rapid boiling test. The pot was
aluminum and held a little more than 3 litres of cold water. I put on a
cast iron lid that fit reasonably well. At 10 minutes it was at a full
boil.

At this time I turned down the air and let it burn in the 'choked' mode.
The boiling continued. When after 40 minutes the fuel was largely
charcoaled, I opened the air again to burn the charcoal to maintain a
bubbling simmer. Most of the first half hour I would say the heat was
excessive as a result of having put in too much fuel.

At 60 minutes, with the charcoal coming to an end (though the pot was
still bubbling) I put in the third piece (95mm long). This required me
to lift the pot to drop it in. I let it catch light well and then
turned down the air as soon as it would burn without visible smoke
(about 3 or 4 minutes). Even turned down, it was hard to stop it
boiling pretty hard. I wondered if I should have put in perhaps 50mm at
a time, every half hour or so. I didn't want to spend time working with
it so I just left it simmering and went back to reading Ron Larsen's
reply to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek Earth Warming past.

After another 50 minutes I opened up the air again to burn off the
charcoal which I let continue until there was no more bubbling in the
pot. That was after a further 25 minutes. Total test time: 135
minutes.

The amount of fuel consumed by that point was about 840 grams or so -
there was still some charcoal left but not enough to support simmering.

The amount of water boiled was over 3000 cc and the amount boiled off
was 1250 cc.

1. The early part of the fire was a terrible waste of heat. I
should not have put in more than 1/4 to 1/3 of a Log.
2. The Log lighted well in the confines of the combustion chamber
but I had difficult lighting it using only newspaper, and only wax.
Small split wood was fine.
3. I think the 60mm piece was basically wasted in flames and smoke.
There was too much fuel in the chamber. A realistic or useful burn
would be about 6 or 7 grames a minute average but much of the fuel would
be concentrated on the early high power phase. The simmering runs at
about 3-6 gm/minute depending on whether it is charcoal or wood at the
time.
4. The long simmer averaged 4.5 gm/minute.
5. The Heat Log is a very consistent fuel so it is quite
predictable to use. This probably bodes well for the operator being
able to know how long they can leave the stove cooking attended.
6. In a Vesto, the Heat Log tends to go to charcoal easily which
has its plusses and minuses. The biggest plus seems to be a high
turn-down ratio made possible because once alight, it remains alight
easily with little air. The gases burn cleanly in the secondary stage.

I am impressed.

Regards
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Feb 16 20:32:52 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:51 2004
Subject: Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.2004.213252.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron

There are several issues here:
1: Is there Global Climate Change?
2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> >
> > RWL: Crispin - it appears that you have not yet read the Sciam
> article.
> > I hope you will first read it before responding.
> > >
Would you have a URL to access this article?

> > > Warming or Cooling?
> > > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
> > > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in the
> > > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and all
> > > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand
the
> > > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by those
> > > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of the
> > > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether it
is
> > > heating or cooling us.
> >
> > RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is major
> > warming going on,

Thre seems to be opinion both ways. Are just having "a few warm years", or
is there a real treand setting in?

so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> > man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief
that
> > this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> > >
I miss your point here. If there was "major warming" going on, why could it
not be man-made?

> > > We are significantly overdue for an ice age.

Why is this? Are Ice Ages timed to go off like clockwork?

The most recent article I
> > > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership in
> > > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population by
> > > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
> > > overdue.

I would suggest that the cow cause of Ice Age Aversion is bull. :-) The
simple reason being that cow farts, and even worse, termite farts, are a
result of the consumption of biomass, not fossil fuel. There is no "new
carbon" being introduced to the biosphere.
> > >
> > RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have
added
> > so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling.
The
> > cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the Hansen
> > argument.

I'm not familar with the Hansen Paper, but I am guessing you are referring
to CO2. What does he say about the fact that the quantity of water vapor in
teh atmosphere is a bigger grenhouse gas than CO2, OR, that if there is a
"Cloud Effect", this can keep heat out?
> >
> >
> > > Who Contributes What?
> > > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
> > > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
> > > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
> > > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global
warming'
> > > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is
not
> > > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> > >
Firstly there is the assumption that there is global warming, and secondly
there is the assumption that CO2 is contributing to global warming, and
thirdly, even if there was global warming, CO2 from biomass does not
contribute to it.

> > RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated it,
> it
> > might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> > Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG,
propane,
> > or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> > arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.

LNG from Fossil Fuels definitely brings "new carbon into the Biosphere". Bio
mass doesn't. Is it not true that if biommass products of combustion are
vented outside, then there is no IAQ problem?
> >
> > > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
> > > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking
and
> > > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
> > > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if
electricity
> > > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned
biomass?
> > > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the
oil
> > > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs in
> > > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the
pollution
> > > gas audit.

The products of biomass combustion, regardless of how poorly they are
burned, are not a contributor to increased CO2 in the Biosphere. Biomass
carbon is simply recycled carbon.
> >
> > RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is definitely
not
> > ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is just
> that
> > his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> > (health)
^That issue can be addressed simply with venting of the living space.
Improved stove efficiency is better, bet venting alone will attend to the
IAQ issue.

> and GW reasons.
Only "fossil sourced carbon" adds to the Greenhouse Effect

And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
> with
> > electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three stones
and
> > maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I am
> sure
> > he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
> combustion
> > of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> > >
The worst of 'three stone fires" is better than the best of fossil fueled
fires. Fossil fuels bring "new carbon" to the biosphere, while biomass fires
fires have no "new carbon emissions."

> > > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to see
> > > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It
would
> > > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?

I would suggest that there is no CH4 potential of consequence from
permafrost: The CH4 has been emitted within a few years of "laydown of the
original mosses and sedges. A neat experiment to prove or disprove this
belief would be to run a biogas digester on peat moss.

> > >
> > RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost. I
saw
> > one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but to
the
> > best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be economic.

It should not be too difficult to get data on whether or not peat from a
permafrost bog liberated CH4 on warming.
> >
> > > Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
> > > About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
> > > people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
> > > People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning
imply
> > > that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
> > > 'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all.

Agreed that it does not make sense.
We
> > > should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
> > > electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
> > > process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.
> > >
Any amount of "fossil fuel power" is worse than "biomass power"

> > RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on GW
> > terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse.

Under what circumstances can it be worse?? Certainly, there may be some smog
effects, but there is no net contribution to the Greenhouse Effect from
biomass burning.

On this
> > list, we have to prove that burning in affordable stoves (not power) can
b
> e
> > better. I thnk most would agree that we have not yet proven this.

Yes we have. The worst imaginable biomass stove does not produce a net CO2
addition to the biosphere. Biomass is not a fossil fuel. The best possible
fossil fueled stove is a far greater contributer to the Greenhouse Effect

> > My reason for sending the Hansen summary is to say that the
> particulate
> > (soot, black carbon) side of stove emissions is worse than previously
> > acknowledged and that anyone interested in limited the GW forcing
function
> > should look at stoves as a low cost way of making improvements.

The particulate issue is another matter. It has "nuclear winter
connotations. If anything, poor biomass combustion will lead to Global
Cooling.

We have
> > almost no-one in the international scene making this point and I claim
it
> > can be a way to get more dollars invested in what this list is devoted
to.
> >
There are many loose ends here. There are simple solutions to IAQ: vent
systems. Biomass fuels defnitely do not bring "new carbon" into the
biosphere. particulates from poor biomass (or diesel fuel) combustion tend
to favor Global Cooling, rather than Global Warming.

I would suggest that a major activity that this List should be directing its
efforts to is firstly defining the problem clearly. Once the problem is
clear, the money will flow.

> > > What would an 'improved' General Electric cooking range look like?
What
> > > about an improved Sears Superweight stainless steel saucepan to reduce
> > > the acid rain falling over the Great Lakes?

Acid rain is another, different, issue...
> > >
> > RWL: Good point. I suggest we first need to do a lot of work to
show
> > that there is a positive benefit-cost ratio for that. We had a pretty
> good
> > cross-section of people working on real stoves for developing
countries -
> > but no-one able to speak for GE and other similar suppliers. I'm not
> > surprised that we didn't get to such a topic.

Isn't this supposed to be a "biomass combustion stoves list?" Should we not
"get our own house in order first?"

> >
> > > Fuel efficiency:
> > > I built a very rudimentary coal stove that cooks and heats while
> > > consuming less total coal than is required to generate and distribute
> > > and equivalent amount of electric power (in South Africa). Think
about
> > > this: Everytime someone in South Africa switches from a reasonably
well
> > > designed coal stove to electricity, their coal consumption increases.

Yes, indeed.
> > > The challenge to stove builders is to see that the small stove option
> > > generates less total pollution and then to market the stoves on the
> > > basis of reducing total energy needed for a task.

There are a number of "masked issues" hidden here.
> > >
> > RWL: Yes, your Vesto (and I guess a different coal-oriented stove)
> > looks very good in this regard.
> > I would like at this point to say I was very impressed by your
clever
> > way to control air input through the fuel-entry port in the "rocket"
> version
> > of your Vesto. For others who didn't or couldn't see the two different
> > stoves that Crispin brought: Crispin had a row of suspended "pendular
long
> > steel blocks" suspended from a wire in such a way that air input was
much
> > reduced but sticks could still be inserted. We agreed that a lower cost
> > version with ceramics should be tried - and that it was an applicable
> > modification of any rocket stove that should reduce the excess air
> problems
> > that some see in the Rocket. Crispin pointed out that there was some
> > preheating of the air as it entered past the "pendulae". Note that
> Crispin
> > had a very different approach from the Rocket - and was separately also
> > controlling primary and secondary air in this and the earlier
top-loading
> > Vesto.
Given that Crispin's stove is in principle different from the Rocket stove,
is is appropriate to try amd make a connection to the Rocket?

> >
> >
> > > Stovers' Concern for Global Warming
> > > My main argument is mathematical and goes like this:
> > > - The population of the world for a long time was about 1
billion
> > > (stable).
> > > - They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is
used
> > > by modern biomass-using cooks.
> > > - The present number of people burning biomass is about 2
billion
> > > (double)
> > > - This is an increase of only 1 billion above the 'stable'
number.
> > > - The net contribution to any global warming from the burning of
> > > _additional_ biomass is thus (at most) 2-4% of the total.

Biomass combustion does not contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, as noted
above.
> >
> > RWL: Maybe - but I'd like to see a reference or computation.
> This
> > has a lot to do with the uncombusted gases in cooking - which is not a
> well
> > documented number. I think your 2-4% might be low. In places like
Sudan
> > cooking is perhaps 90% of the national energy consumption. They use
> mostly
> > charcoal - almost all produced with venting not flaring.
> >
Charcoal, wood, flared, unflared... it makes no difference: biomass does not
contribute to the Greenhouse effect.

> > > - At a present additional climate forcing of, say, 4 watts/M^2,
> > > the contribution by the consumers of biomass is 0.08 to 0.16 watts
> >
> > RWL: last number per sqm. Hansen would say your number 4 is too
high
> > today.
> >
It doesn't matter anyway. Being biomass, it does not contribute to the
Greenhouse Effect.

> > > - The 1/3 of the people who, between them, contribute these 0.12
> > > (avg?) extra watts using a renewable energy source should not be held
> > > accountable for anything if the other 2/3 who contribute (per person)
> > > 1.94 watts are left out of the same sentence.
> > >
> > RWL. I know of no-one saying that this is not a problem for ALL of
> the
> > earth's inhabitants. Clearly we in the US are some at the most at
fault.
> > One problem is the US has refused (stupidly in my opinion) to sign the
> Kyoto
> > protocols because developing countries are not required to contribute
> > similarly. If Hansen is right, then perhaps stoves are one of the
lowest
> > cost means of starting to stabilize. The US might find it cheapest to
> meet
> > its quotas (if we ever sign up) by doing stove promotional work in
> > developing countries.

This , in my opinion, is the wrong way to go. Biomass combustion does not
contribute to the Greenhouse Effect. Gasoline consumed by SUV's does. Those
who consume fossif fuel contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, and those who
burn biomass don't.

> > I am not sure if you might have meant 3.94 rather than 1.94 (or
change
> > earlier 4 to 2?)
> >
> > > This is not a totally fair analysis in that part of the 1.94 watts
might
> > > be used to support the lifestyle of the biomass consumers, or equally,
> > > it might be the other way round. Still, on balance, there is no
> > > defensible reason to bring 'global warming' into a discussion of
biomass
> > > cooking stoves. Biomass burning is not more than 1/33 of the problem.

Biomass burning is not at all the problem. The problem is simply fossil
fuel.
> > >
> > RWL: Again to summarize: I believe GW can be a way to get more
> > attention paid to stoves (because it can be a cheap way to improve on GW
> > warming).

YES!! The more biomass that is used to displace fossil fuel, the lesser is
the Greenhouse Effect.

It is an added reason, not a replacement reason. I believe GW
> is
> > of higher concern around the world than is IAQ.

OK. Then encourage biomass fueled stoves, and fossil fuel conservation
elsewhere.

(Aside - I got into this
> > business because of a concern about desertification and deforestation
and
> > still feels that is important. But I strongly endorse IAQ as the stoves
> > driver today - thanks to Kirk Smith and a few others.

Would you endorse good biomass stoves with good venting to help the
Greenhouse Effect and IAQ?

If something
> attracts
> > more attention to stoves, I am willing to endorse it.

What about promoting the fact that biomass combustion does not increase teh
Greenhouse Effect? Could you endorse that?

What is new about
> > Hansen is that he is taling about soot - and stoves can quickly make a
> > positive change because soot has such a short lifetime in the
atmosphere.

If it has a short lifetime, the effect is short.

> > > So, how are we going to sell the idea of biomass fuels for the future
of
> > > mankind if we don't have better, cleaner, safer stoves? Biomass fuels
> > > get a bad rap, even though the problem is bad devices and/or bad
> > > management.
> > >
> > RWL: No disagreement from me. But another problem is that there is
> > insufficient attention to possible improvements. Agree also on your
next
> > sentence.
> >
> > > The future of mankind is green....air dried and well seasoned!
> > >
These things will sort themselves out. As energy becomes more expensive, it
is then becomes increasingly worthwhile to save it.

I would suggest that there are a lot of "loose ends" here. I think it is
very wrong to attempt to blame the Greenhouse Effect on biomass combustion
and cow farts. The problem is clearly increased CO2, and the CO2 in the
biosphere can only be increased if "new carbon" is introduced into it.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

> > > Regards to all
> > > Crispin
> > >
> > > Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
> > > (the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)
> > >
> > > Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > B = Number of biomass users (in billions)
> > > C = Concern that Stove developers should have about global warming
> > > caused biomass fuel cookstoves (absolute)
> > > M = # of mentions that efficient electric stoves (including hotplates)
> > > get during Improved Cook Stove (ICS) programs run by both do-good,
> > > do-well organizations and publicly funded initiatives
> > > NB = Number of non-biomass fuel users - assumed to be using
> > > non-renewable fuels (in billions)
> > > P = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by burning
> > > biomass
> > > R = Portion of biomass gasses that are completely recycled into new
fuel
> > > (by molecular weight)
> > > Rn = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by
> > > non-renewable fuels
> > >
> > > Calculate C For
> > > B= 2.2
> > > M = 0
> > > NB = 4.4
> > > P = 0.06 (est)
> > > R = 0.99
> > > Rn = 0.94
> > >
> > > C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > Substituting:
> > >
> > > Amount of Concern We Should Have = (2.2 * 0 * 0.06) / (4.4 * 0.94 *
> > > 0.99) = 0 Zero!
> > >
> >
> > RWL: Obviously we only need to talk about M (being zero). The Hansen
> > argument has nothing on this, nor have I ever seen this M listed as
being
> a
> > key parameter for concern. I cannot concur that our concern about GW
> should
> > be linearly related to M as you have shown. I know I am stretching the
> > Hansen argument quite a bit to say that soot concern should/could lead
to
> > more support for better stoves. But I think it much less of a stretch
> than
> > your dismissal of his argument about a need for urgent (!) action and
your
> > claiming that GW importance is so linearly related to electric cooking
> > discussion amongst biomass stoves proponents. I think you have not yet
> > understood how much bad stoves contribute to GW and ocean surface rise
> > (especially because of soot, but all forms of incomplete combustion) and
> how
> > we can use this extension to get more international action. Your
equation
> > simply looks like a way to justify your belief that there is no
connection
> > between stoves and GW.
> > I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but here's a hope that I
> said
> > enough more to convert you.
> >
> > Ron
> >

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon Feb 16 23:15:30 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.2004.211530.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

Kevin today said about my message on GW:

> Dear Ron
>
> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > >
> > > RWL: Crispin - it appears that you have not yet read the Sciam
> > article.
> > > I hope you will first read it before responding.
> > > >
> Would you have a URL to access this article?
>
RWL: There was this at the end of the article:
www.sciam.com/ontheweb

There I found a 14.7 MB file (apparently free) that my computer balked at
and I have not yet had time to retry. The main intro to the article only
gives two not-very-helpful paragraphs. This should be on most newstands at
$4.95 - but also at most libraries.

> > > > Warming or Cooling?
> > > > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
> > > > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in
the
> > > > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and
all
> > > > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand
> the
> > > > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by
those
> > > > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of
the
> > > > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether
it
> is
> > > > heating or cooling us.
> > >
> > > RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is
major
> > > warming going on,
>
> There seems to be opinion both ways. Are just having "a few warm years",
or
> is there a real trend setting in?

RWL: Sorry, but there is much more data than a few years. I know
of no well-known scientist who disputes that the effect is real.

>
> so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> > > man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief
> that
> > > this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> > > >
> I miss your point here. If there was "major warming" going on, why could
it
> not be man-made?
>
RWL: Exactly.

> > > > We are significantly overdue for an ice age.
>
> Why is this? Are Ice Ages timed to go off like clockwork?
>

RWL: Hansen explains this quite convincingly. Much of his article
is on the historical record.

> The most recent article I
> > > > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > > > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership
in
> > > > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population
by
> > > > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
> > > > overdue.
>
> I would suggest that the cow cause of Ice Age Aversion is bull. :-) The
> simple reason being that cow farts, and even worse, termite farts, are a
> result of the consumption of biomass, not fossil fuel. There is no "new
> carbon" being introduced to the biosphere.
> > > >

RWL: There is such an effect, but we are talking of bigger man-made
effects and espceially of soot, which comes from natural fires, but much
more from those caused by man.

> > > RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have
> added
> > > so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling.
> The
> > > cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the Hansen
> > > argument.
>
> I'm not familar with the Hansen Paper, but I am guessing you are referring
> to CO2. What does he say about the fact that the quantity of water vapor
in
> teh atmosphere is a bigger grenhouse gas than CO2, OR, that if there is a
> "Cloud Effect", this can keep heat out?

RWL: I'm not sure what he would say - just don't recall much. My guess
is that he might say that his projections have included the effects as well
as they can be projected.

> > >
> > >
> > > > Who Contributes What?
> > > > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > > > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking
activities
> > > > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
> > > > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
> > > > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global
> warming'
> > > > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is
> not
> > > > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> > > >
> Firstly there is the assumption that there is global warming, and secondly
> there is the assumption that CO2 is contributing to global warming, and
> thirdly, even if there was global warming, CO2 from biomass does not
> contribute to it.
>
RWL: I'm not sure who you are referring to.
1. I say that man-made GW is proven - there are NO assumptions here.
Read Hansen. I believe he speaks for 99% of those working in the field.
2. Hansen points out that there are many causes of GW (not just CO2)
and that we have been successful in controlling some of them already.
3. Biomass can contribute a lot if "burned" badly - especially on soot.
Also CH4 and CO release which are much worse per gram than CO2.

> > > RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated
it,
> > it
> > > might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> > > Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG,
> propane,
> > > or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> > > arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.
>
> LNG from Fossil Fuels definitely brings "new carbon into the Biosphere".
Bio
> mass doesn't. Is it not true that if biommass products of combustion are
> vented outside, then there is no IAQ problem?

RWL: No it is not true - especially when in a crowded slum area.
Problem reduced but certainly not eliminated. But thie issue before us is
GW. You better read some of Kirk's writing on this subject. Go to
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/

> > >
> > > > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
> > > > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking
> and
> > > > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
> > > > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if
> electricity
> > > > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned
> biomass?
> > > > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the
> oil
> > > > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs
in
> > > > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the
> pollution
> > > > gas audit.
>
> The products of biomass combustion, regardless of how poorly they are
> burned, are not a contributor to increased CO2 in the Biosphere. Biomass
> carbon is simply recycled carbon.

RWL: To a first order and over a long term, you are correct. But
there is a lot more going on than the first order effect. Remember I have
stated I am all for improved biomass use.

> > > RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is definitely
> not
> > > ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is just
> > that
> > > his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> > > (health)
> ^That issue can be addressed simply with venting of the living space.
> Improved stove efficiency is better, bet venting alone will attend to the
> IAQ issue.
>
> > and GW reasons.
> Only "fossil sourced carbon" adds to the Greenhouse Effect
>
RWL: Not true - as explained above.

> And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
> > with
> > > electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three stones
> and
> > > maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I
am
> > sure
> > > he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
> > combustion
> > > of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> > > >
> The worst of 'three stone fires" is better than the best of fossil fueled
> fires. Fossil fuels bring "new carbon" to the biosphere, while biomass
fires
> fires have no "new carbon emissions."
>
RWL: Again - read Smith.

>
> > > > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to
see
> > > > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It
> would
> > > > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?
>
> I would suggest that there is no CH4 potential of consequence from
> permafrost: The CH4 has been emitted within a few years of "laydown of the
> original mosses and sedges. A neat experiment to prove or disprove this
> belief would be to run a biogas digester on peat moss.
>
RWL There are two topics under discussion. I have seen estimates
that CH4 hydrates (both in the ocean and in permafrost) are the world's
large fossil reserve. I was answering more about the hydrates than about
new CH4 production.

>
> > > >
> > > RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost. I
> saw
> > > one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but to
> the
> > > best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be
economic.
>
> It should not be too difficult to get data on whether or not peat from a
> permafrost bog liberated CH4 on warming.

RWL: Again - I was referring to the methane hydrates.
> > >
> > > > Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
> > > > About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
> > > > people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
> > > > People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning
> imply
> > > > that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
> > > > 'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all.
>
> Agreed that it does not make sense.
> We
> > > > should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
> > > > electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
> > > > process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.
> > > >
> Any amount of "fossil fuel power" is worse than "biomass power"
>
> > > RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on
GW
> > > terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse.
>
> Under what circumstances can it be worse?? Certainly, there may be some
smog
> effects, but there is no net contribution to the Greenhouse Effect from
> biomass burning.
>
RWL: All this depends on the time period under discussion. If we are
worrying about 100 years and less, bad biomass combustion can be a big
problem.

> On this
> > > list, we have to prove that burning in affordable stoves (not power)
can
> b
> > e
> > > better. I thnk most would agree that we have not yet proven this.
>
> Yes we have. The worst imaginable biomass stove does not produce a net CO2
> addition to the biosphere. Biomass is not a fossil fuel. The best possible
> fossil fueled stove is a far greater contributer to the Greenhouse Effect
>
RWL: You have to go and read the Hansen article. There is more
than CO2 involved here.
> > > My reason for sending the Hansen summary is to say that the
> > particulate
> > > (soot, black carbon) side of stove emissions is worse than previously
> > > acknowledged and that anyone interested in limited the GW forcing
> function
> > > should look at stoves as a low cost way of making improvements.
>
> The particulate issue is another matter. It has "nuclear winter
> connotations. If anything, poor biomass combustion will lead to Global
> Cooling.
>
RWL: I sure hope you read the Hansen article before replying to
this reply.

> We have
> > > almost no-one in the international scene making this point and I claim
> it
> > > can be a way to get more dollars invested in what this list is devoted
> to.
> > >
> There are many loose ends here. There are simple solutions to IAQ: vent
> systems. Biomass fuels defnitely do not bring "new carbon" into the
> biosphere. particulates from poor biomass (or diesel fuel) combustion tend
> to favor Global Cooling, rather than Global Warming.
>
> I would suggest that a major activity that this List should be directing
its
> efforts to is firstly defining the problem clearly. Once the problem is
> clear, the money will flow.
>
RWL: A good first step would be to read the article under
discussion. Then read Smith on biomass and GW. Then let me know where each
is wrong. Responding to Crispin and Larson isn't the point.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Feb 17 00:59:42 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.015942.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves

> Stovers:
>
> Kevin today said about my message on GW:
>
>
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > There are several issues here:
> > 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> > 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> > 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
> >
...del...
> > > > >
> > Would you have a URL to access this article?
> >
> RWL: There was this at the end of the article:
> www.sciam.com/ontheweb
>
> There I found a 14.7 MB file (apparently free) that my computer balked at
> and I have not yet had time to retry. The main intro to the article only
> gives two not-very-helpful paragraphs. This should be on most newstands
at
> $4.95 - but also at most libraries.
>
I've tried to download the article, but it doesn't want to come down in a
reasonable time.

> > > > > Warming or Cooling?
> > > > > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be
no
> > > > > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in
> the
> > > > > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and
> all
> > > > > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do
understand
> > the
> > > > > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by
> those
> > > > > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of
> the
> > > > > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether
> it
> > is
> > > > > heating or cooling us.
> > > >
> > > > RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is
> major
> > > > warming going on,
> >
> > There seems to be opinion both ways. Are just having "a few warm
years",
> or
> > is there a real trend setting in?
>
> RWL: Sorry, but there is much more data than a few years. I know
> of no well-known scientist who disputes that the effect is real.

There is a body of people who are concerned about the onset of an Ice Age.
One theory holds that the warming is "the calm before the storm." Certainly,
we have had a number of warm years recently.... statements like "... 10 of
the last 12 years were the warmest on record..." certainly support a
"warming trend" but that is a long way from being able to say that the
climate is on a path to warming.

Melting of the Polar Ice Cap can be a first step in an Ice Age sequence. The
excess fresh water can cause the "Ocean Heat Engine" to stall. This will
basically kill the Gulf Stream, and the warmth it brings to Europe.
>
> >
> > so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> > > > man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief
> > that
> > > > this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> > > > >
> > I miss your point here. If there was "major warming" going on, why could
> it
> > not be man-made?
> >
> RWL: Exactly.
Exaclty what?
>
> > > > > We are significantly overdue for an ice age.
> >
> > Why is this? Are Ice Ages timed to go off like clockwork?
> >
>
> RWL: Hansen explains this quite convincingly. Much of his
article
> is on the historical record.
>
Regrettably, I coul;d not get the article open. However, I do not believe
that the Ice Ages can be predicted any more accurately than within a few
hundred years. Man's Activity is a "wild card" that did not exist
previously. Given the previous "natural" variation, the activities of Man
could reasonably advance or retard the timing by a few more hundred years.

> > The most recent article I
> > > > > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > > > > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership
> in
> > > > > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that
population
> by
> > > > > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are
presently
> > > > > overdue.
> >
> > I would suggest that the cow cause of Ice Age Aversion is bull. :-) The
> > simple reason being that cow farts, and even worse, termite farts, are a
> > result of the consumption of biomass, not fossil fuel. There is no "new
> > carbon" being introduced to the biosphere.
> > > > >
>
> RWL: There is such an effect, but we are talking of bigger man-made
> effects and espceially of soot, which comes from natural fires, but much
> more from those caused by man.

If we burn only biomass, and do not burn fossil fuels, how can the carbon
load in the biosphere be increased? There are TWO issues here: 1: Increasing
CO2, and 2: Particulate Matter. These phenomena act in accordance with
Gaia's Wishes... they tend to balance out each other.
>
> > > > RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have
> > added
> > > > so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling.

That we have added so much what??? CO2 is certainly up, but increasing
particulate matter could indeed cause a cooling effect. Even water vapor can
have an "albedo effect". I do not think that there is enough clear evidence
to support a "...no chance..." stance.

> > The
> > > > cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the
Hansen
> > > > argument.
> >
> > I'm not familar with the Hansen Paper, but I am guessing you are
referring
> > to CO2. What does he say about the fact that the quantity of water
vapor
> in
> > teh atmosphere is a bigger grenhouse gas than CO2, OR, that if there is
a
> > "Cloud Effect", this can keep heat out?
>
> RWL: I'm not sure what he would say - just don't recall much. My
guess
> is that he might say that his projections have included the effects as
well
> as they can be projected.

I don't think we should accept Hansen blindly, unless we know exactly what,
and why, he says things.
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Who Contributes What?
> > > > > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > > > > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking
> activities
> > > > > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based
on
> > > > > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by
'clean'
> > > > > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global
> > warming'
> > > > > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity
is
> > not
> > > > > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> > > > >
> > Firstly there is the assumption that there is global warming, and
secondly
> > there is the assumption that CO2 is contributing to global warming, and
> > thirdly, even if there was global warming, CO2 from biomass does not
> > contribute to it.
> >
> RWL: I'm not sure who you are referring to.

I believe Kirk was talking about the contribution of emissions from biomass
stoves, and their contribution to global warming.

> 1. I say that man-made GW is proven - there are NO assumptions here.

And I say that it is not proven. We each hold different views.

> Read Hansen. I believe he speaks for 99% of those working in the field.

A number of people are concerned about an impending Ice Age. I think there
are enough of them to water down the 99% figure.

> 2. Hansen points out that there are many causes of GW (not just CO2)
> and that we have been successful in controlling some of them already.

I think it is correct to say that we have controlled some of the factors
that COULD contribute to Global Warming. That does not imply that we either
have GW, or do not have GW.
> 3. Biomass can contribute a lot if "burned" badly - especially on
soot.

Soot acts just the opposite to GW... it causes Global Cooling, as was
demonstrated by particulates from Mount St. Helene recently, and Krakatoa in
the past.

> Also CH4 and CO release which are much worse per gram than CO2.

Water is worse still. There is a lot more of it also. Additionally, it can
act both ways: As a Greenhouse Gas, promoting warming, OR as ice particles
that promote global cooling, just like Krakatoa.
>
> > > > RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated
> it,
> > > it
> > > > might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> > > > Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG,
> > propane,
> > > > or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> > > > arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.
> >
> > LNG from Fossil Fuels definitely brings "new carbon into the Biosphere".
> Bio
> > mass doesn't. Is it not true that if biommass products of combustion are
> > vented outside, then there is no IAQ problem?
>
> RWL: No it is not true - especially when in a crowded slum area.
> Problem reduced but certainly not eliminated.

Yes, you do have a point here.

But thie issue before us is
> GW. You better read some of Kirk's writing on this subject. Go to
> http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/

I think the issue we are addressing from this paragraph is the wrongness of
stating that biomass brings new carbon to the biosphere, and that it is a
better solution to the GHG problem by bringing more fossil carbon into the
biosphere, simply because it can be burned more completely. The dirtiest of
biomass combustion with lots of particulates, would drive the system away
from Global Warming. It would drive it toward Global Cooling. It is
important to keep both factors separate. (GW as a result of fossil fuel
combustion, and GC, as a result of increased particulate loadings.)
>
> > > >
> > > > > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to
call
> > > > > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for
cooking
> > and
> > > > > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the
gases
> > > > > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if
> > electricity
> > > > > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned
> > biomass?
> > > > > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or
the
> > oil
> > > > > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy
costs
> in
> > > > > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the
> > pollution
> > > > > gas audit.
> >
> > The products of biomass combustion, regardless of how poorly they are
> > burned, are not a contributor to increased CO2 in the Biosphere. Biomass
> > carbon is simply recycled carbon.
>
> RWL: To a first order and over a long term, you are correct. But
> there is a lot more going on than the first order effect. Remember I
have
> stated I am all for improved biomass use.

Actually, it is just the opposite: there is a short term "spike loading" as
woody material is burned, and the spike decays to background, as replacement
biomass consumes the CO2 over a period of time. Of course, we are all for
improved biomass use. That is not the question. The question is: Does
biomass combustion contribute to GW? At the best, with perfect combustion,
it does not, because it does not result in a net increase in teh atmospheric
CO2 loading. At the worst, poor combustion would contribute to GC, because
of particulates.
>
> > > > RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is
definitely
> > not
> > > > ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is
just
> > > that
> > > > his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> > > > (health)
> > ^That issue can be addressed simply with venting of the living space.
> > Improved stove efficiency is better, bet venting alone will attend to
the
> > IAQ issue.
> >
> > > and GW reasons.
> > Only "fossil sourced carbon" adds to the Greenhouse Effect
> >
> RWL: Not true - as explained above.
>
You took the remark out of context. We are not talking about fluorocarbons,
and other GHG's. This thread is concerned with CO2 only. In the correct
context my statement is indeed correct.

> > And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
> > > with
> > > > electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three
stones
> > and
> > > > maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I
> am
> > > sure
> > > > he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
> > > combustion
> > > > of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> > > > >
> > The worst of 'three stone fires" is better than the best of fossil
fueled
> > fires. Fossil fuels bring "new carbon" to the biosphere, while biomass
> fires
> > fires have no "new carbon emissions."
> >
> RWL: Again - read Smith.

Does Smith state that biomass brings new carbon into the biosphere? I don't
think so.
>
> >
> > > > > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to
> see
> > > > > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It
> > would
> > > > > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?
> >
> > I would suggest that there is no CH4 potential of consequence from
> > permafrost: The CH4 has been emitted within a few years of "laydown of
the
> > original mosses and sedges. A neat experiment to prove or disprove this
> > belief would be to run a biogas digester on peat moss.
> >
> RWL There are two topics under discussion. I have seen estimates
> that CH4 hydrates (both in the ocean and in permafrost) are the world's
> large fossil reserve. I was answering more about the hydrates than about
> new CH4 production.

This is a distractionary point. The topic at hand is biomass combustion, and
the permafrosted bogs can generate COs as they decompose. However, their
"biogas potential" is low. While there are enormous quantities of Methane
Hydrates in the deep ocean, I don't think that the Temperatures and
Pressures that exist in permafrost bogs can permit holding of much CH4. Even
if the permafrost regions contained significant quantities of Methane
Hydrates, they would be at a depth where they would not release, almost
regardless of surface temperatures that could be imagined practically. The
oceans are another matter entirely: if there is sufficient decrease in
surface salinity, there could be an "ocean roll-over" that would not be
measured in centuries or decades or years, but months, weeks, or days. That
could bring vast quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere in very short order.
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost.
I
> > saw
> > > > one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but
to
> > the
> > > > best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be
> economic.
> >
> > It should not be too difficult to get data on whether or not peat from a
> > permafrost bog liberated CH4 on warming.
>
> RWL: Again - I was referring to the methane hydrates.

I would suggest that they are not a concern in the permafrost regions.

...del...
> > > > RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on
> GW
> > > > terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse.
> >
> > Under what circumstances can it be worse?? Certainly, there may be some
> smog
> > effects, but there is no net contribution to the Greenhouse Effect from
> > biomass burning.
> >
> RWL: All this depends on the time period under discussion. If we are
> worrying about 100 years and less, bad biomass combustion can be a big
> problem.

The point we are attempting to resolve is whether or not Biomass combustion
contributes to teh Greenhouse Effect. I contend it does not. The next issue
is whether poor biomass combustion contributes to air pollution and IAQ
problems. Certainly it does.
>
> >
> > Yes we have. The worst imaginable biomass stove does not produce a net
CO2
> > addition to the biosphere. Biomass is not a fossil fuel. The best
possible
> > fossil fueled stove is a far greater contributer to the Greenhouse
Effect
> >
> RWL: You have to go and read the Hansen article. There is more
> than CO2 involved here.

True, but I am attempting to address the biomass CO2 issue.

..del...> >
> > The particulate issue is another matter. It has "nuclear winter
> > connotations. If anything, poor biomass combustion will lead to Global
> > Cooling.
> >
> RWL: I sure hope you read the Hansen article before replying to
> this reply.
>
Regrettably, I could not access it. Without referring to the Hansen or Smith
work, could you point out specifically where my thinking is in error?

> > > >
> > There are many loose ends here. There are simple solutions to IAQ: vent
> > systems. Biomass fuels defnitely do not bring "new carbon" into the
> > biosphere. particulates from poor biomass (or diesel fuel) combustion
tend
> > to favor Global Cooling, rather than Global Warming.
> >
> > I would suggest that a major activity that this List should be directing
> its
> > efforts to is firstly defining the problem clearly. Once the problem is
> > clear, the money will flow.
> >
> RWL: A good first step would be to read the article under
> discussion. Then read Smith on biomass and GW. Then let me know where
each
> is wrong. Responding to Crispin and Larson isn't the point.
>
I haven't had the benefit of being able to read the Hansen Article. I
haven't had the time to read the Smith articles either, but they are wrong
if they state that the combustion of biomass, either perfectly or
imperfectly, adds additional carbon to the biosphere.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From yark at UIUC.EDU Tue Feb 17 06:01:05 2004
From: yark at UIUC.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
In-Reply-To: <001601c3f41a$9d1a7630$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.050105.0600.YARK@UIUC.EDU>

Dear Crispin,

First, it was wonderful to make your acquaintance IN PERSON, and I am quite
honored to be the Proud Owner of a new Vesto. (I hope I took the right one,
and I am sorry that I didn't get to say goodbye.)

As far as the 'factual existence' of global warming, it is physically true
that a little CO2 in the atmosphere heats the system. It is also true that
we do not quite understand how this complex system responds. The arguments
are not about whether our activities add more energy to the system. They
do. Next, we are wondering how the system will respond. Blind sense says
the system should respond by heating up and doing other things. Blind sense
ain't always right, especially when we don't know what we're tugging on.

>We are significantly overdue for an ice age. The most recent article I
>have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
>re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership...

If you are referring here to the work presented by William Ruddiman last
year, then I have to challenge you a bit. If you are using the argument
that anthropogenic activities (greenhouse gases) 'saved us' from an ice age
in the 1600s, then you are implicitly buying into the hypothesis that human
modification works, and I'll hold you to it! ;-)

>Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
>figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
>was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
>biomass burning

That's correct. In fact, turning fuel carbon into CO2 appears to have a
lower climate impact than just about anything else you can do with it
(besides sequestration).

>On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
>attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking and
>heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
>produced on behalf of electricity consumers.

I think that Kirk's comments seemed to be targeting biomass combustion
unfairly. But these are taken out of context. You might get a more
realistic picture if you put his presentation against the backdrop of focus
on CO2 or greenhouse (or 'Kyoto') gases. Some of his other work suggests
that it doesn't make sense to worry about implementing non-renewable energy
(e.g. fossil fuels), as long as there are climatic impacts from these other
PICs that aren't addressed. I believe that he is trying to bring a more
holistic picture of 'pollution' or 'undesirable effects' to the table.
(Correct me, Kirk.)

Let's be clear about what resounds as so patently unfair: in wood
cookstoves vs shiny electric, (or worse) wood stoves vs SUVs, we are
talking about subsistence vs luxury consumption. One simply can't target
subsistence emissions in the same manner as luxuries. Not only is it
unethical, but it doesn't work. On the other hand, the greenhouse gas (GHG)
issue has often been a 'luxury' discussion to date, and there's been
inadequate focus on subsistence issues. And so, if the discussion could be
targeted correctly (an admittedly risky undertaking), there's a possibility
of aligning needed focus and needed action. [Yes, that was vague, but it's
the first time I've ever tried to write it out.]

Crispin, I see your bid and raise you: since you have sparked my whimsy, I
am going to make you an offer, but I will save it until next message and
stay on topic here.

>Do we know if electricity is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass?

It probably is.

>What about well burned biomass?

It isn't. And I agree with your call for life-cycle analysis.

>There were no calls at the ETHOS conference for people to draft plans to
>get American and German and Argentine cooks to use pot heat shields
>around their shiny stainless steel cookware, even though they are in a
>far better position to pay for extra hardware than Guatemalan villagers.

Right on! We all should have sunken pots if we are going to call for them
elsewhere.

In fact, I have wondered about your electricity comparison before. Even
IGCC power plants only get about ~42% efficiency-- which is rivaling LPG
cookstove, according to Kirk's measurements. Then you have transmission
losses, and THEN you have electric-stove inefficiencies. Cooking with
electricity is a BAD idea in general.

>- The population of the world for a long time was about 1 billion
>(stable).
>- They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is used
>by modern biomass-using cooks.

Actually, the rate appears to have been far higher in the U.S. And while
you make a good point on the 'additional' warming, biomass emissions may be
a potential cheap reduction. They might be worthwhile to look at, whether
or not the forcing has occurred since 'pre-industrial.'

>We see a lot of lousy devices, poor fuel preparation, inappropriate
>architecture in unhealthy and dangerous environments. Yet we should not
>lose sight of the fact that this is a renewable energy source and its
>use should be encouraged and planned for.

Agreed. So burn it better.

Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
>(the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)
>
>Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)

Be careful, Crispin. All I have to do is mention M once next year, and then
your formula takes off running! ;-)

Tami

From yark at UIUC.EDU Tue Feb 17 06:02:39 2004
From: yark at UIUC.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Cows and Clouds
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.050239.0600.YARK@UIUC.EDU>

Here I will try to address some of the questions raised by Ron and Kevin in
their later messages.

Ron, frankly I don't know any climate scientist who would say that GW was
'proven'. There appears to be a 'balance of evidence' which means that it
is more likely than not in the minds of many. The system is extremely
variable and the signal is small. How can we call it 'proven' yet? I for
one would not wager on the nature, predictability nor cycles of Gaia; She
will undoubtedly make us look like idiots. However, She may get tired of
paying our bills sometime.

Kevin, as far as I can tell, it's not reasonable to cite collapse of the
thermohaline circulation as a counter to warming. If you shut it down by
warming, (a) you have a localized effect (in Europe) and other locations
still have to deal with warming; and (b) you are still conducting
anthropogenic climate change even if the net effect is cooling in some
regions.

Kevin, it is correct that biomass does not add new carbon to the
atmosphere, but it is incorrect that the processes that move carbon around
the biosphere-- from cows to combustion-- cannot contribute to global
warming. Some molecules absorb energy better than others, and methane is
one of them. The energy absorbed by methane during 100 years after emission
(which is shorter than that of CO2) is about 20x greater than the energy
absorbed by CO2 during 100 years after emission. So if a blade of grass
takes up CO2, turns it into some sugar or other, and it gets eaten by a cow
who farts methane, the photosynthesis+cow process has effectively turned
CO2 into CH4 and increased global warming, even if that particular carbon
atom wasn't 'new' to the atmosphere. The same is true of poor combustion.
And...

> Charcoal, wood, flared, unflared... it makes no difference: biomass does not
> contribute to the Greenhouse effect.

Absolutely untrue. It makes all the difference in the world over the next
100 years. All the climate models that are run with '2xCO2' could equally
be run with other greenhouse gases (GHGs) doing the forcing. If you wish to
define CO2 as the Enemy, and other GHGs as Not Important (as you appear to
in your last message), then I agree that fossil fuel is a different set of
flows. But that view is either too narrow or too broad. People who
recommend action on global change are usually thinking in terms of managing
anthropogenic input over the next century or so, *including* non-CO2 GHGs.

Repeat: In terms of new CO2, the worst of three-stone fires IS better than
the best of fossil fires.
In terms of *warming*, the worst of three-stone fires is NOT better than
the best of fossil fires.
That's what Kirk Smith has showed in some of his work.

> I'm not familar with the Hansen Paper, but I am guessing you are referring
> to CO2. What does he say about the fact that the quantity of water vapor in
> teh atmosphere is a bigger grenhouse gas than CO2, OR, that if there is a
> "Cloud Effect", this can keep heat out?

Water vapor is treated as a feedback in the climate models. So are clouds
and their formation and properties. To be sure, there are large
uncertainties associated with them, but they are treated as responses to
change rather than as human-imposed forcing. Whether they are represented
correctly will take a little work to verify (understatement).

As for aerosols, sho' nuff, people think they are global cooling on
average. Diesel soot is mostly black and is probably a net warmer because
it absorbs energy. The 'nuclear winter' stuff did predict cooling by
aerosols, but only by assuming some aerosol properties that aren't
representative of more deliberately-conducted combustion. Aerosols can be
either warming or cooling. The 100-year problem is that greenhouse gases
will continue to accumulate, and aerosols won't. It is thought that
aerosols may have been masking some of the greenhouse warming, but that
won't continue.

Tami

From yark at UIUC.EDU Tue Feb 17 06:06:43 2004
From: yark at UIUC.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Tami's offer to Crispin: ETHOS travel challenge
In-Reply-To: <001601c3f41a$9d1a7630$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.050643.0600.YARK@UIUC.EDU>

Dear Crispin,

Following is the offer I insinuated in my previous message...
--> I will 'buy' my ticket to Seattle in Vestos. Further, I will 'buy'
*your* ticket as well, if you accede, and yours will not be cheap.

More precisely, I will offset the CO2 emissions of the air travel by
purchasing aerosol reductions that subsidize the cost of the Vesto. I do
believe that I am the first person on Earth to try this. This is cutting
edge, baby; I had better send you the money before somebody else beats me
to it.

I calculate the Vesto-credit conservatively below. The method is not
supportable except by my own analysis, but as far as possible the values
are based on current scientific literature (admittedly, some of it is mine).

1. Round-trip travel to Seattle: From Chicago, 0.7 tonne CO2; from
Swaziland, 4.8 tonne CO2. These numbers are from
http://climatecare.trinomics.net/airtravelcalc/airtravelcalc.cfm. (I didn't
know your routing so I sent you through London.)

2. Stove: 3-year lifetime, 3 people using, 1.5 kg-wood/capita/day, BC
emission factor 0.7 g/kg-wood. Therefore, the stove puts out 3.5 kg of BC
during its lifetime. I will take only 2/3 of that as reduction. You
yourself admitted the stove smokes upon lighting. => 2.3 kg BC credit per
stove.

3. Black carbon (BC), a kind of particle, is a climate warmer. It has been
discussed here on Stoves before, and Ron alluded to Jim Hansen's article
covering the same topic. Not only Ron and Jim, but also George W. Bush
suggested we should try this. A conservative estimate of BC's 100-year GWP
is 300. (Yes, I said it was 100 on Stoves back in 9/2001, but I have
revised carefully since then. My real calc is more like 600, and doesn't
count Jim's sooty snow.)

4. This gives about 0.7 tonne-CO2 equivalent reduction per stove. (We will
not quibble about offsetting power plant emissions here, nor the rest of
Kirk Smith's GHGs.) So I need to facilitate transfer of **eight stoves** to
offset our travel. (And only one is for mine!)

5. Your stoves are darn expensive at $40. It makes $60/tonne-CO2eq. Neither
I nor anyone will bite at that price. If you can prove they last longer
because of your swirl, they will be more attractive.

6. However, it's a terrible idea for me to buy stoves and donate them; they
wouldn't get used. So YOUR mission ~~should you choose to accept~~ is to
find eight people who really want the Vesto, and will buy it at $20 but not
at $40. Each person purchases the stove for $20, and I send you a bank
draft for $160 USD to cover the balance. (Do you take credit cards?) I'm
still paying $30/tonne-CO2eq. Call me a sucker.

7. For 'verification', I request that you capture and provide the
photographs of the purchasers and stoves, unless this action is prohibited
by religion or other social construct. Real verification would be much,
much more difficult; you would have to 'prove' that your Vesto reduced
emissions.

**The glove has been thrown.**
Any Seattle attendees match me on this? Ron? You started this...

Tami

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Feb 17 10:40:35 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Tami's offer to Crispin: ETHOS travel challenge
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.2004.104035.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Tami,

I'll match the challenge. 8 stoves it is. $160

We'll post the pictures on a challenge page on the stoves website along
with a standing invitation to others to meet the challenge with Vestos or
other CO2 conserving appliances.

European utilities will pay Euro 40/tonne CO2 from 2004-2007 and Euro
100/tonne after 2007 so $30-40/tonne is not a bad price.

Tom

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:06:43 -0600, Tami Bond <yark@UIUC.EDU> wrote:

>Any Seattle attendees match me on this? Ron? You started this...
>
>Tami

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Feb 20 09:08:36 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Test burning Heat Logs
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.070836.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Crispin and All:

Excellent report on the burning of compressed sawdust logs. (Was there wax
throughout or only on the surface to promote lighting?)

~~~~~~~~
Good stove combustion isn't "rocket science" - it's much harder. In one
century we got rockets to the moon. In 300 centuries we haven't gotten very
good cooking fires from biomass and had to go to
kerosene/propane/electricity. Soon we may all be back to biomass if we
continue our fossil fuel wasteful practices, so let's solve it now.
~~~~~~~~
A few pieces of the puzzle:

Dry biomass has a mass air/fuel ratio of 6 (as opposed to gasoline at 14.7,
methanol at 6.3 etc.) The contained water will change this requirement.

Pure carbon (~charcoal) has an A/F ratio of 11.4, so requires more air for
complete combustion than wood/biomass.
(Calculate from
C + (O2 + 3.76 N2) ==> CO2 + 3.76 N2
12 137 )

The heat of pyrolysis of biomass is less than 5% of the heat of combustion
(21 MJ/kg or 8800Btu/lb for bone dry. So be very careful NOT to get too
much heat to the whole mass while lighting.

We don't generally want too much moisture in wood for efficient combustion.
HOWEVER, if you light one end of a very dry log, the heat passes through it
quickly and it will soon be burning all over. If the log contains > 10%
moisture, it will burn like a cigarette and release the volatiles at a
controlled rate (Hal Shelton principle).

Hope these help in sorting out the infinite number of relationships between
biomass/air/water.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVE-GASWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:26 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Test burning Heat Logs

> Dear Stovers
>
> I managed to get a bag of Heat Logs made of sawdust. This is saying
> something because we are nowhere near one of machines that make
> densified biomass fuels.
>
> The measure 63mm square with rounded corners and 247mm long. There is a
> 14mm hole through the centre. It weighs 866 grams.
>
> The stove used was a Vesto fitted to be able to severly restrict the
> primary air. The test started with a general 'burn' to see what it was
> like and during that test I was able to try different loadings and check
> the power output.
>
> This evening I tried a boiling test which was again still a look-see
> before trying something more well documented with accurate weights and
> all. I feel it is worth reporting this test.
>
> It was clear from the first test that putting on the whole Log was going
> to be a problem - it has far too much heat output to use all at once.
> This time I broke it into 3 pieces. Two were about 95mm long and the
> last one was about 60mm long. The Heat Log started easier than I
> thought it would so tonight I tried using _only_ a coating of candle wax
> on the top of a large piece, then turned the unit on its side. This
> almost worked but eventually it went out so I went back to my regular
> routine of lighting a small fire of twigs and dropping two parts of the
> log into it. I put in the small piece and one of the larger ones.
>
> This turned out to be a mistake. It was still too much fuel and the
> flames were quite unnecessarily high. Undeterred by the pyrotechnics I
> decided it would be a good time to do a rapid boiling test. The pot was
> aluminum and held a little more than 3 litres of cold water. I put on a
> cast iron lid that fit reasonably well. At 10 minutes it was at a full
> boil.
>
> At this time I turned down the air and let it burn in the 'choked' mode.
> The boiling continued. When after 40 minutes the fuel was largely
> charcoaled, I opened the air again to burn the charcoal to maintain a
> bubbling simmer. Most of the first half hour I would say the heat was
> excessive as a result of having put in too much fuel.
>
> At 60 minutes, with the charcoal coming to an end (though the pot was
> still bubbling) I put in the third piece (95mm long). This required me
> to lift the pot to drop it in. I let it catch light well and then
> turned down the air as soon as it would burn without visible smoke
> (about 3 or 4 minutes). Even turned down, it was hard to stop it
> boiling pretty hard. I wondered if I should have put in perhaps 50mm at
> a time, every half hour or so. I didn't want to spend time working with
> it so I just left it simmering and went back to reading Ron Larsen's
> reply to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek Earth Warming past.
>
> After another 50 minutes I opened up the air again to burn off the
> charcoal which I let continue until there was no more bubbling in the
> pot. That was after a further 25 minutes. Total test time: 135
> minutes.
>
> The amount of fuel consumed by that point was about 840 grams or so -
> there was still some charcoal left but not enough to support simmering.
>
> The amount of water boiled was over 3000 cc and the amount boiled off
> was 1250 cc.
>
> 1. The early part of the fire was a terrible waste of heat. I
> should not have put in more than 1/4 to 1/3 of a Log.
> 2. The Log lighted well in the confines of the combustion chamber
> but I had difficult lighting it using only newspaper, and only wax.
> Small split wood was fine.
> 3. I think the 60mm piece was basically wasted in flames and smoke.
> There was too much fuel in the chamber. A realistic or useful burn
> would be about 6 or 7 grames a minute average but much of the fuel would
> be concentrated on the early high power phase. The simmering runs at
> about 3-6 gm/minute depending on whether it is charcoal or wood at the
> time.
> 4. The long simmer averaged 4.5 gm/minute.
> 5. The Heat Log is a very consistent fuel so it is quite
> predictable to use. This probably bodes well for the operator being
> able to know how long they can leave the stove cooking attended.
> 6. In a Vesto, the Heat Log tends to go to charcoal easily which
> has its plusses and minuses. The biggest plus seems to be a high
> turn-down ratio made possible because once alight, it remains alight
> easily with little air. The gases burn cleanly in the secondary stage.
>
> I am impressed.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Feb 20 09:38:59 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.073859.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:

I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
resolve all conflicts at one blow.
~~~~~~
I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will encounter
a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
"birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another glacial
age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create more
wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced so
far.

The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this is a
secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted from
Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We both
went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and Boulder
tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists tell us
that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice ages
90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next glaciation.
Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.

Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is immaterial.
If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs, particularly
in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of these
programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming ice
age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any fossil
fuels.)

Conflict resolved.

TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves

> Stovers: I meant to send this earlier to all - as had Crispin. Any
other
> comments? Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
>
>
> > Crispin and "stovers":
> >
> > Yesterday you responded to my same day message saying:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ron and Fellow Stovers
> > >
> > > Many thanks for drawing this timely article to our attention. It is
> > > available to me, far as I am from you. I would like to analyse this
> > > issue in a holistic manner so that we are not encouraging
inappropriate
> > > directions or underrating some issues.
> >
> > RWL: Crispin - it appears that you have not yet read the Sciam
> article.
> > I hope you will first read it before responding.
> > >
> > > Warming or Cooling?
> > > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
> > > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in the
> > > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and all
> > > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand
the
> > > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by those
> > > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of the
> > > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether it
is
> > > heating or cooling us.
> >
> > RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is major
> > warming going on, so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> > man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief
that
> > this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> > >
> > > We are significantly overdue for an ice age. The most recent article
I
> > > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership in
> > > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population by
> > > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
> > > overdue.
> > >
> > RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have
added
> > so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling.
The
> > cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the Hansen
> > argument.
> >
> > > However, if countries want to agree on an international treaty that
> > > assists improvement in indoor air quality (and people's lives) and
> > > punishes polluters, it's fine by me!
> > >
> > RWL: No disagreement on IAQ. But this is an added and I think
> stronger
> > argument for getting big money into stoves.
> >
> > > Who Contributes What?
> > > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
> > > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
> > > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
> > > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global
warming'
> > > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is
not
> > > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> > >
> > RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated it,
> it
> > might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> > Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG,
propane,
> > or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> > arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.
> >
> > > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
> > > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking
and
> > > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
> > > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if
electricity
> > > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned
biomass?
> > > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the
oil
> > > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs in
> > > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the
pollution
> > > gas audit.
> >
> > RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is definitely
not
> > ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is just
> that
> > his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> > (health) and GW reasons. And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
> with
> > electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three stones
and
> > maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I am
> sure
> > he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
> combustion
> > of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> > >
> > > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to see
> > > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It
would
> > > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?
> > >
> > RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost. I
saw
> > one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but to
the
> > best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be economic.
> >
> > > Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
> > > About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
> > > people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
> > > People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning
imply
> > > that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
> > > 'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all. We
> > > should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
> > > electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
> > > process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.
> > >
> > RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on GW
> > terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse. On
this
> > list, we have to prove that burning in affordable stoves (not power) can
b
> e
> > better. I thnk most would agree that we have not yet proven this.
> > My reason for sending the Hansen summary is to say that the
> particulate
> > (soot, black carbon) side of stove emissions is worse than previously
> > acknowledged and that anyone interested in limited the GW forcing
function
> > should look at stoves as a low cost way of making improvements. We have
> > almost no-one in the international scene making this point and I claim
it
> > can be a way to get more dollars invested in what this list is devoted
to.
> >
> > > There were no calls at the ETHOS conference for people to draft plans
to
> > > get American and German and Argentine cooks to use pot heat shields
> > > around their shiny stainless steel cookware, even though they are in a
> > > far better position to pay for extra hardware than Guatemalan
villagers.
> > > What would an 'improved' General Electric cooking range look like?
What
> > > about an improved Sears Superweight stainless steel saucepan to reduce
> > > the acid rain falling over the Great Lakes?
> > >
> > RWL: Good point. I suggest we first need to do a lot of work to
show
> > that there is a positive benefit-cost ratio for that. We had a pretty
> good
> > cross-section of people working on real stoves for developing
countries -
> > but no-one able to speak for GE and other similar suppliers. I'm not
> > surprised that we didn't get to such a topic.
> >
> > > Fuel efficiency:
> > > I built a very rudimentary coal stove that cooks and heats while
> > > consuming less total coal than is required to generate and distribute
> > > and equivalent amount of electric power (in South Africa). Think
about
> > > this: Everytime someone in South Africa switches from a reasonably
well
> > > designed coal stove to electricity, their coal consumption increases.
> > > The challenge to stove builders is to see that the small stove option
> > > generates less total pollution and then to market the stoves on the
> > > basis of reducing total energy needed for a task.
> > >
> > RWL: Yes, your Vesto (and I guess a different coal-oriented stove)
> > looks very good in this regard.
> > I would like at this point to say I was very impressed by your
clever
> > way to control air input through the fuel-entry port in the "rocket"
> version
> > of your Vesto. For others who didn't or couldn't see the two different
> > stoves that Crispin brought: Crispin had a row of suspended "pendular
long
> > steel blocks" suspended from a wire in such a way that air input was
much
> > reduced but sticks could still be inserted. We agreed that a lower cost
> > version with ceramics should be tried - and that it was an applicable
> > modification of any rocket stove that should reduce the excess air
> problems
> > that some see in the Rocket. Crispin pointed out that there was some
> > preheating of the air as it entered past the "pendulae". Note that
> Crispin
> > had a very different approach from the Rocket - and was separately also
> > controlling primary and secondary air in this and the earlier
top-loading
> > Vesto.
> >
> >
> > > Stovers' Concern for Global Warming
> > > My main argument is mathematical and goes like this:
> > > - The population of the world for a long time was about 1
billion
> > > (stable).
> > > - They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is
used
> > > by modern biomass-using cooks.
> > > - The present number of people burning biomass is about 2
billion
> > > (double)
> > > - This is an increase of only 1 billion above the 'stable'
number.
> > > - The net contribution to any global warming from the burning of
> > > _additional_ biomass is thus (at most) 2-4% of the total.
> >
> > RWL: Maybe - but I'd like to see a reference or computation.
> This
> > has a lot to do with the uncombusted gases in cooking - which is not a
> well
> > documented number. I think your 2-4% might be low. In places like
Sudan
> > cooking is perhaps 90% of the national energy consumption. They use
> mostly
> > charcoal - almost all produced with venting not flaring.
> >
> > > - At a present additional climate forcing of, say, 4 watts/M^2,
> > > the contribution by the consumers of biomass is 0.08 to 0.16 watts
> >
> > RWL: last number per sqm. Hansen would say your number 4 is too
high
> > today.
> >
> > > - The 1/3 of the people who, between them, contribute these 0.12
> > > (avg?) extra watts using a renewable energy source should not be held
> > > accountable for anything if the other 2/3 who contribute (per person)
> > > 1.94 watts are left out of the same sentence.
> > >
> > RWL. I know of no-one saying that this is not a problem for ALL of
> the
> > earth's inhabitants. Clearly we in the US are some at the most at
fault.
> > One problem is the US has refused (stupidly in my opinion) to sign the
> Kyoto
> > protocols because developing countries are not required to contribute
> > similarly. If Hansen is right, then perhaps stoves are one of the
lowest
> > cost means of starting to stabilize. The US might find it cheapest to
> meet
> > its quotas (if we ever sign up) by doing stove promotional work in
> > developing countries.
> > I am not sure if you might have meant 3.94 rather than 1.94 (or
change
> > earlier 4 to 2?)
> >
> > > This is not a totally fair analysis in that part of the 1.94 watts
might
> > > be used to support the lifestyle of the biomass consumers, or equally,
> > > it might be the other way round. Still, on balance, there is no
> > > defensible reason to bring 'global warming' into a discussion of
biomass
> > > cooking stoves. Biomass burning is not more than 1/33 of the problem.
> > >
> > RWL: Again to summarize: I believe GW can be a way to get more
> > attention paid to stoves (because it can be a cheap way to improve on GW
> > warming). It is an added reason, not a replacement reason. I believe
GW
> is
> > of higher concern around the world than is IAQ. (Aside - I got into
this
> > business because of a concern about desertification and deforestation
and
> > still feels that is important. But I strongly endorse IAQ as the stoves
> > driver today - thanks to Kirk Smith and a few others. If something
> attracts
> > more attention to stoves, I am willing to endorse it. What is new about
> > Hansen is that he is taling about soot - and stoves can quickly make a
> > positive change because soot has such a short lifetime in the
atmosphere.
> > I believe that the solution is more than 1/33 of the problem because
> we
> > can put more emphasis on soot - which is the #2 driver.
> >
> > > We see a lot of lousy devices, poor fuel preparation, inappropriate
> > > architecture in unhealthy and dangerous environments. Yet we should
not
> > > lose sight of the fact that this is a renewable energy source and its
> > > use should be encouraged and planned for.
> > >
> > RWL: I have said on this list that I did not think that propane,
LNG,
> > etc was the right solution. I strongly agree that improved biomass
> > combustion is a better way to go. (My reason is that I think we are
right
> > about at the peak of possible world oil production. No way that the
> > developing countries are going to be first in line when the supply can't
> > meet demand, no matter how little theywould use.)
> >
> > > So, how are we going to sell the idea of biomass fuels for the future
of
> > > mankind if we don't have better, cleaner, safer stoves? Biomass fuels
> > > get a bad rap, even though the problem is bad devices and/or bad
> > > management.
> > >
> > RWL: No disagreement from me. But another problem is that there is
> > insufficient attention to possible improvements. Agree also on your
next
> > sentence.
> >
> > > The future of mankind is green....air dried and well seasoned!
> > >
> > > Regards to all
> > > Crispin
> > >
> > > Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
> > > (the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)
> > >
> > > Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > B = Number of biomass users (in billions)
> > > C = Concern that Stove developers should have about global warming
> > > caused biomass fuel cookstoves (absolute)
> > > M = # of mentions that efficient electric stoves (including hotplates)
> > > get during Improved Cook Stove (ICS) programs run by both do-good,
> > > do-well organizations and publicly funded initiatives
> > > NB = Number of non-biomass fuel users - assumed to be using
> > > non-renewable fuels (in billions)
> > > P = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by burning
> > > biomass
> > > R = Portion of biomass gasses that are completely recycled into new
fuel
> > > (by molecular weight)
> > > Rn = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by
> > > non-renewable fuels
> > >
> > > Calculate C For
> > > B= 2.2
> > > M = 0
> > > NB = 4.4
> > > P = 0.06 (est)
> > > R = 0.99
> > > Rn = 0.94
> > >
> > > C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > Substituting:
> > >
> > > Amount of Concern We Should Have = (2.2 * 0 * 0.06) / (4.4 * 0.94 *
> > > 0.99) = 0 Zero!
> > >
> >
> > RWL: Obviously we only need to talk about M (being zero). The Hansen
> > argument has nothing on this, nor have I ever seen this M listed as
being
> a
> > key parameter for concern. I cannot concur that our concern about GW
> should
> > be linearly related to M as you have shown. I know I am stretching the
> > Hansen argument quite a bit to say that soot concern should/could lead
to
> > more support for better stoves. But I think it much less of a stretch
> than
> > your dismissal of his argument about a need for urgent (!) action and
your
> > claiming that GW importance is so linearly related to electric cooking
> > discussion amongst biomass stoves proponents. I think you have not yet
> > understood how much bad stoves contribute to GW and ocean surface rise
> > (especially because of soot, but all forms of incomplete combustion) and
> how
> > we can use this extension to get more international action. Your
equation
> > simply looks like a way to justify your belief that there is no
connection
> > between stoves and GW.
> > I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but here's a hope that I
> said
> > enough more to convert you.
> >
> > Ron
> >
>

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri Feb 20 15:13:13 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Fwd: [GASL] Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.141313.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

Some of you might not have seen this posting about testing (unless you are
also on the Gasification List Serve.) I am especially thinking of Tami and
Dean.

Sorry for duplication to some of you.

Paul

>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:39:17 -0600
>From: a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
>Subject: [GASL] Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
>Sender: The Gasification Discussion List <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Reply-to: a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Hello GGG, Andrew, Steve, Tom, & All
>(the list gets longer all the time, pheeww!)
>
>Anyhow, 2 things.
>
>
>1) Found this http://www.tarweb.net/results/pdf/guideline-3.3-v2.pdf
>on the web, It is a "Standardized" method of tar & particle evaluation,
>Has anyone used this method, should I adopt this method ?? on page 50
>it gives a list of compounds to look for when testing (Steve, would
>have been nice to know this, before I sent out for tests, wouldn't it :)
>
>I guess what I'm asking, is "Are there any of you that are following
> this method" ??
>
>
>
>2) The "Virtual" Throat/Grate testing is going quite nicely, but will
>hold off on results until I can back my findings.
>
>Regards as always,
>
>Greg Manning,
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Sat Feb 21 11:17:28 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: [GASL] Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.111728.EST.>

In a message dated 2/20/04 1:05:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:

DD Daniel Dimiduk's Comments added to > Tom's and Kevins:
>
> >Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:
> >
> >I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
> >resolve all conflicts at one blow.
> > ~~~~~~
> I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, but I disagree with the
> point that it resolves any differences in beliefs leading to the conflict.
>
> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?

DD Let me add # 4 Which is most important: Is any fluctuation of climate
beyond what man has experienced in the past 1000 years acceptable if it can be
avoided? Local/regional fluctuations can often cause more serious problems than
an overall change.

>
> 1: Global Climate Change: Of course, there is "global climate change," at
> least in the sense of the weather this year being different from the weather
> last year. How many years of "average warmer" or "average colder" weather is
> required to justify a change in definition from "Weather Change" to "Climate
> Change?"

DD I don't feel we have the time to wait to find this out - by that time it
will be too late.

>
> 2: It does appear to me that there is "Global Warming," as evidenced by
> polar ice cap melting, violence of weather patterns, rapidity and severity
> of change in weather patterns, location of storm damage events, etc, but El
> Nino seems to have come and gone. However, I don't know if it has been shown
> Globally that we really are on a "permanently warmer plateau", as was parts
> of the world in the Carboniferous Era, or if perhaps we are simply
> experiencing 15 years of "warmer weather."

DD The earth certainly has a considerable number of balance mechanisms at w
ork to regulate climate-most involve: evaporation, condensation, freezing
thawing and sublimation of water. Shading/ reflection of sun by clouds, and
snowcover are also involved. Others, such as ocean currents , icecap melting/ forming
and escape of subsea methane hydrates are less predictable and do not always
act as balancing mechanisms but can act as destabilizes. When climate is pushed
in one direction these mechanisms can farther amplify the push.
DD Ancient air trapped in ice cores show we are approaching levels of CO2 and
methane similar to and not seen since the carboniferous period. Even if the
long term effects have not shown themselves, the ingredients are already there
for dramatic future change. The question is how long will the stabilizers --
such as melting ice caps-continue to balance out the equation. Every square
meter no longer covered by ice and snow is a square meter absorbing more solar
energy.

> 3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused
> by
> Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that show
> higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in the
> atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.

DD I have not seen this report -- this is interesting. There could be many
explanations for this. How are air samples being taken? At all altitudes? We
do know that the combustion of fossil fuels is on the way to doubling the CO2
content of the atmosphere over the last 100 years.

>
> There is indeed error in the widespread thinking that "planting trees will
> correct Global Warming"; apparently there is more "tree biomass in the US
> now than there has been for the past 150 years. There is a very fundamental
> error in the belief that CO2 from the combustion of Biomass will contribute
> to a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere.
>
DD Well, at least the last hundred years anyway. The major deforestation here
accompanied the spread of farm animal grazing brought on by the railroads.
When approached from a global perspective though, deforestation has increased
until lately. As our forests here in the USA have somewhat grown back -
rainforests around the world have been cut down.
DD The combustion of biomass can have different effects on climate change
just by how the combustion takes place. If particles are produced, they absorb
solar radiation at whatever altitude they exist and convert it into heat,
warming the air. The altitude of the particles has an effect on warming or cooling.
More methane is produced for example, while charcoal making with vented,
unflared gas, or with slow anaerobic decomposition of biomass. Remember that
methane has considerably more of a heat trapping effect than CO2
DD Where biomass is combusted is also an issue. Black soot particles have
little effect on solar radiation on a cloudy day. Rain can wash soot and CO2 out
of the air, at least temporarily, in the case of CO2. Methane produced from
lousy combustion in a valley can cause a serious local heating problem on a
calm day. Soot clouds from lousy combustion can cause serious cooling in that
same circumstance.

> There are some very intelligent and good spirited people on this list, with
> a deep professional and personal interest in Biomass, Combustion and Climate
> Change. If people with these capabilities hold differing views, then that
> alone is an indication of the lack of resolution of the problem.

DD Yes, but most evidence points to some major change occurring. If we add
warming here and cooling there we are certainly stirring the climatic pot. If we
warm the atmosphere overall, it causes more clouds and rain in the tropics.
Evaporation, convection and condensation increase to transport additional heat
to upper altitudes where it can be released into space. This can cause
shading and cooling of tropical areas, yet does not indicate global cooling
overall. An increase of convection is related to an increase in convection related
storm activity. The evidence is that of farther extremes in climate.

>
> What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the premise
> is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
> aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.

DD What working on renewables should seek is to provide the least disturbance
to the balances that exist locally. We cannot hope to do good on a large
scale without knowing what other conditions are affected. For example, a huge
biofuels plant in one area shifts resources and heat balances as much as a forest
fire.

>
> You may have heard the story about the Janitor in the Seismographic Lab, who
> bumped into the seismograph late one night and made a large jiggle on the
> recorder strip shart. The Resident Seismographer came in the next morning,
> and when he saw the jiggle on the chart, then proceeded to show that there
> was an earthquake on the far side of the world at that exact time. The
> Science Community has within it now more people and more data than it ever
> had in the past. Is it possible that perhaps some of the data is corrupt,
> but that it is being used to support a particular conclusion?

DD There is no doubt that faulty and corrupt data are still a problem. These
things will sort out as more data is collected over time. The global climate
change problem is no longer a new observation and some of these problems have
already been solved. It's not like one scientist just went out and discovered
this problem yesterday.

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> >I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will
> encounter
> >a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
> >"birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another glacial
> >age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create more
> >wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced
> so
> >far.
> >
> >The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
> >arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this is
> a
> >secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted
> from
> >Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We both
> >went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and
> Boulder
> >tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists tell
> us
> >that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice
> ages
> >90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next glaciation.
> >Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.
> >
> >Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is
> immaterial.
> >If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs, particularly
> >in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of these
> >programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
> >Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming
> ice
> >age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any
> fossil
> >fuels.)
> >
> >Conflict resolved.
> >
> >TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS
>

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sat Feb 21 13:29:34 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: High mass stoves
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.122934.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

With all of our valid discussion of LOW mass, here is an item about high
mass stoves for the wealthy (and perhaps with some possible use for stoves
for poor who live in seasonally cold areas.)

James Dulley has a newspaper column, and you can see the one on Masonary
fireplaces at this address:

http://www.dulley.com/docs/961.htm

be sure to also click on the "descriptive illustration" hotlike (near top
of the article) to see pictures of "Paths of hot lue gases inside the
fireplaces."

I did not purchase (for $2.90 with instand download) the
"Update Bulletin No. 961 - buyer's guide of 13 manufacturers and builders
of true masonry and soapstone heaters, detailed descriptions of the
interior structures, design types (many styles pictured), heating
instructions with illustrations and explanations, a firewood selector
guide, firewood tips and a hardwood fuel values chart."

If someone does obtain it, please make some comments back to the Stoves
list serve.

Enjoy,

Paul

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Feb 21 17:36:44 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: High mass stoves
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040221121931.02065ca0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.163644.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

The best source of info I've found for that sort of thing is

http://www.mha-net.org/

Here's one site I've found for building your own from scratch, although it still
involves expensive bricks, etc. I'd love to find plans for one made of clay, as
I know that the "tile" and "masonry" stoves of Finland, Russia, etc where this
was developed were only for the well to do, while the peasants used the same
idea, but made them from clay.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4095/masonry/

And, BTW, the neatest feature of this style of heating stoves is the fact that
you don't need a source of high quality firewood to make them work, i.e., cut
and split oak, maple, hickory, etc. logs. Low quality wood like cottonwood,
aspen, etc. works just as well, you just need a bit more volume. The actual
weight is what matters, so you could, instead of building one fire consisting of
65lbs of dry oak logs, build two or three fires of coppiced willow -- or heck,
even tightly rolled cardboard.
Or think back to our previous conversations on ersatz densification or
briquetting of various biomass -- shredded paper, leaves, etc. Perfect for
that, it's what I'm planning for my next abode.
And while I realize the most of you are concerned primarily with cooking
stoves for (fairly warm) 3rd world clients, think a bit about the needs of those
of us in NA and Europe as the 1st world economy devolves and the creeping
glaciers loom nigh. I recall reading one source that claimed that England,
during the last glacial epoch, went from warmer than now to total thick ice
cover in about 75 years.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:29:34PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> Stovers,
>
> With all of our valid discussion of LOW mass, here is an item about high
> mass stoves for the wealthy (and perhaps with some possible use for stoves
> for poor who live in seasonally cold areas.)
>
> James Dulley has a newspaper column, and you can see the one on Masonary
> fireplaces at this address:
>
> http://www.dulley.com/docs/961.htm
>
> be sure to also click on the "descriptive illustration" hotlike (near top
> of the article) to see pictures of "Paths of hot lue gases inside the
> fireplaces."
>
> I did not purchase (for $2.90 with instand download) the
> "Update Bulletin No. 961 - buyer's guide of 13 manufacturers and builders
> of true masonry and soapstone heaters, detailed descriptions of the
> interior structures, design types (many styles pictured), heating
> instructions with illustrations and explanations, a firewood selector
> guide, firewood tips and a hardwood fuel values chart."
>
> If someone does obtain it, please make some comments back to the Stoves
> list serve.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Feb 22 11:42:25 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.094225.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Crispin and All;

Excellent exchange.

I said that the solution in my last paragraph "resolved" the issues because
whatever you believe, global warming OR global cooling, we could ALL agree
to conseve our fossil fuel resources for the rest of our lives (if we are
young and busy) or for our posterity (if we are old and cam afford to be
concerned).

It is a human failing to think that "truth is in the words". Words can lie
or tell the truth with equal ease. Ultimately truth is in the facts and the
final GW/GC facts aren't available. But a verifiable fact is that we are
pissing away our energy inheritance as fast as we can. We had better come up
with a viable alternative sooner rather than later, faster rather than
slower. So lets stop arguing and start conserving!

Yours for a viable future...

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> Dear Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:38 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Conflict resolution
>
>
> > Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:
> >
> > I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
> > resolve all conflicts at one blow.
> > ~~~~~~
> I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, but I disagree with the
> point that it resolves any differences in beliefs leading to the conflict.
>
> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
>
> 1: Global Climate Change: Of course, there is "global climate change," at
> least in the sense of the weather this year being different from the
weather
> last year. How many years of "average warmer" or "average colder" weather
is
> required to justify a change in definition from "Weather Change" to
"Climate
> Change?"
>
> 2: It does appear to me that there is "Global Warming," as evidenced by
> polar ice cap melting, violence of weather patterns, rapidity and severity
> of change in weather patterns, location of storm damage events, etc, but
El
> Nino seems to have come and gone. However, I don't know if it has been
shown
> Globally that we really are on a "permanently warmer plateau", as was
parts
> of the world in the Carboniferous Era, or if perhaps we are simply
> experiencing 15 years of "warmer weather."
>
> 3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused
by
> Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that
show
> higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in
the
> atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.
>
> There is indeed error in the widespread thinking that "planting trees will
> correct Global Warming"; apparently there is more "tree biomass in the US
> now than there has been for the past 150 years. There is a very
fundamental
> error in the belief that CO2 from the combustion of Biomass will
contribute
> to a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere.
>
> There are some very intelligent and good spirited people on this list,
with
> a deep professional and personal interest in Biomass, Combustion and
Climate
> Change. If people with these capabilities hold differing views, then that
> alone is an indication of the lack of resolution of the problem.
>
> What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the
premise
> is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
> aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.
>
> You may have heard the story about the Janitor in the Seismographic Lab,
who
> bumped into the seismograph late one night and made a large jiggle on the
> recorder strip shart. The Resident Seismographer came in the next morning,
> and when he saw the jiggle on the chart, then proceeded to show that there
> was an earthquake on the far side of the world at that exact time. The
> Science Community has within it now more people and more data than it ever
> had in the past. Is it possible that perhaps some of the data is corrupt,
> but that it is being used to support a particular conclusion?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> > I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will
> encounter
> > a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
> > "birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another
glacial
> > age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create
more
> > wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced
> so
> > far.
> >
> > The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
> > arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this
is
> a
> > secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted
> from
> > Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We
both
> > went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and
> Boulder
> > tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists
tell
> us
> > that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice
> ages
> > 90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next
glaciation.
> > Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.
> >
> > Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is
> immaterial.
> > If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs,
particularly
> > in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of
these
> > programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
> > Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming
> ice
> > age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any
> fossil
> > fuels.)
> >
> > Conflict resolved.
> >
> > TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun Feb 22 16:15:44 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.231544.0200.>

Dear Tom and Ron and All

I have been negligent for not responding to all the messages of the past
few days but I have been travelling to Johannesburg and back and then
taking care of things at work more than finding time to share with
friends. You know how it is!

I am behind quite a few responses:

Tami's Offer (and Tom Miles')

I accept the offer and we will work out what to do to accommodate it.
As selling a subsidized stove is a problem in principle, we will have to
locate a market where there was nearly no likelihood of someone buying
one or else the market will be distorted. One possibility is Ethiopia
where by all accounts, the chance of selling it at $40 or so is low, and
where there is a really high pressure on resources with little being
done to alleviate the disappearance of forests. There is an Italian guy
with an engineering shop in southern Addis Ababa who is willing to get
into the selling of stoves and we could mark the Ethiopian market for
subsidized stoves.

A Canadian friend of mine is involved in an agricultural development
project there in which they were hoping to reduce the amount of dung
burned so that would be more for fertilizer available. The idea is
interesting and holistic. A dung-burning stove would be an asset in
that community, if it were affordable. The chances of selling an all
metal stove in that market in numbers is pretty low at the present
production cost. It is a possibility then to do experimentally.

If the selling price drops in future, the subsidized price would come
down, agreed?

Rotary Clubs work with the Wheelchair Foundation to distribute free
wheelchairs and they have a system to prevent more than one chair going
to a person. It involves a disposable 24 picture camera accompanying
the shipment (several actually). Each container has enough cameras to
get one picture of each recipient holding a large numbered plate which
is unique to that chair. Each stove could be shipped with a printed
number card. These pictures are collected. In our case they could be
put on the web. Something like this method could be used to trade
carbon and greenhouse gas 'credits' on an informal market. If people
want to get involved in renegate trading contracts (as Tami calls them)
so be it!

Kyoto/GEF/CDM Carbon Trading

As Tami has pointed out on the side, there are things which affect the
atmosphere in stove and airplane engine emissions which are not on the
traded list. Airborne PIC's are of course very interesting in this
regard, as is soot. They are not covered by Kyoto but are real and have
impact. We could offer people a chance to fund an atmospheric
improvement that goes far beyond Kyoto.

Supposing people simply stated trading in carbon and PIC's and didn't
bother to go through the CDM mechanism (which is incredibly
complicated). It is voluntary.

Anyone who wants to could be given a chance to pay for the subsidized
distribution of attestably fuel saving stoves in a biomass burning
market that would otherwise not benefit from them.

Some things are required here which are based on the CDM documents:

The savings have to be verified, in terms of the device/devices to be
promoted.
The offset value must be established - Solco data from the past 7 years
could be used www.solco.co.za as they have established the fuel/carbon
savings for their solar cooker promotion program (intending to get CDN
money to subsidize the stoves)
The use of the devices after sale has to be verified (at least
statistically) and there are model for this in the CDM papers.
The lifetime of the device has to be known, average lifetime savings
calculated, average impact deduced.

All this taken together will give us a figure upon which to buy and sell
the atmospheric impact of a single stove.

Students will be very interested in working voluntarily on this sort of
thing. It is perfect for projects and wil be 'published'

There are of course different options one could offer people and it
could be something like a Whole Earth Catalogue for the atmosphere.
Perhaps we can get some back to the earth catalogues to sell carbon
rights along with the stoves and manual juicer machines.

There are bound to be at least some overheads. These can either be
borne by the buyer or by a donor of some sort. I suggest that
everything to do with testing be volunteered. Everything to do with
verification (for the moment) could be done by GTZ (ProBEC for example)
as they are already active in the countries we (and some others) might
work in.

It is most interesting to note that to do this we will have to answer
one of the questions raised at Kirkland: what is the actual installed
cost of a stove of a certain type, program, advertising, training,
distribution and all. To the product with the greatest atmospheric
impact per $ should go the subsidy so that the cost of a ton of carbon
not vented will be the lowest possible to the buyer. Low cost, good
manufacturing or building, efficient combustion and effective heat
transfer would be rewarded.

The stove should be a BEAUTY: Burn Everything And Use The Yield.

A virtuous stove!

Let's do it!
Crispin

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

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: 22 February 2004 18:42
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Energy Conflict resolution

Dear Crispin and All;

Excellent exchange.

I said that the solution in my last paragraph "resolved" the issues
because whatever you believe, global warming OR global cooling, we could
ALL agree to conseve our fossil fuel resources for the rest of our lives
(if we are young and busy) or for our posterity (if we are old and cam
afford to be concerned).

It is a human failing to think that "truth is in the words". Words can
lie or tell the truth with equal ease. Ultimately truth is in the facts
and the final GW/GC facts aren't available. But a verifiable fact is
that we are pissing away our energy inheritance as fast as we can. We
had better come up with a viable alternative sooner rather than later,
faster rather than slower. So lets stop arguing and start conserving!

Yours for a viable future...

TOM REED

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun Feb 22 17:49:29 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.164929.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

One "candle power" usually refers to an amount of light. I would like to
know what one candle produces in terms of heat. Assume an average candle
(Not birthday nor big decorative candle.)

Then, assume that the candle heat could be put into water in a VERY well
insulated container (with some lose -- would that be 30%?? --because it
must have its own "chimney effect" to move the hot gases). In such as
situation, how long would it take one candle to heat one cup of water (what
is one cup in metric milli-liters??)

Maybe this sounds silly. But making one cup of tea before sun-rise
(therefore, by the light of one candle in a small house in a remote area)
just might be important to some people.

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

From yark at UIUC.EDU Sun Feb 22 20:45:47 2004
From: yark at UIUC.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict, Warming, IPCC
In-Reply-To: <002501c3f962$db0931f0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.194547.0600.YARK@UIUC.EDU>

Dear TOM (and others)

I respect your viewpoint on conservation, and think it is a valid one. As
devil's advocate, I ask: is it consensus that 'we are pissing away our
energy inheritance'? I think we could find a few people to argue against
the imminent scarcity of fossil resources. If we could rely on coal, we'd
have many decades to figure out a solution. Does anything argue against
using coal as a transition to renewables, *except for* the threat of GW?

In fact, arguments on either side of the GW debate and the fossil-resource
debate are sometimes similar: 'We must take action now before things get
worse, even if we are not 100% certain that we will approach the limit we
fear...' vs 'Perhaps there is a problem, but we will be far better equipped
to deal with it in the future, and now is not the time to clip our wings.'
(These are not of course the only arguments. I am reminded of my 4-yr-old
daughter's reply when she was scolded for using an entire roll of tape in
one hour: 'But SOMETIME it has to be gone!')

To me, it boils down to another question. Gavin added #4 and so did Dan, so
I will add...

(#6) What level of attention should we give to human impacts on natural
resources? And what beliefs about direct impacts must we hold in order to
justify that attention? (In 'natural resources' I include fossil stocks,
the biosphere, AND the atmospheric commons.)

Kevin: The warming by methane is 20x CO2 **over 100 years**-- that means
that methane's warming is MORE powerful than 20x CO2 during its short
lifetime.

Joel: I'd not rest on calling the IPCC a 'consensus document', although
everyone does. I prefer the term 'collaborative.' IMHO, the Summaries,
particularly the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) are less consensus than
the background material, and one really has to read the entire background
to fully appreciate what is and isn't present. The scientists listed as
reviewers have generally NOT reviewed the entire volume. My view is that
the document is true consensus among lead authors, and among those
reviewers who have had time to make a stink when they don't agree. (Now I
shall get taken out and shot by said community. Nice knowing y'all.) Still,
it really is an impressive process.

Like everything else, IPCC should be taken with a grain of salt. But you
have a good point: while scientists and the state of science are imperfect,
the industrialized world places quite a lot of faith in this process in
general. It may not be a *completely* open process, but there are a number
of careful scientists looking at the question, and a lot of scientific
glory to be gained from 'disproving' the GW hypothesis, and so I think it
will be fairly robust in the long term.

Tami

From anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM Mon Feb 23 01:47:36 2004
From: anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM (Anil K Rajvanshi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.014736.0500.ANILRAJVANSHI@VSNL.COM>

Dear Stovers,

It is an interesting exchange. The trick is to change one's attitudes and
lifestyle before imposing them on others. We should try to change first
ourselves and with our examples others might change. Simple living and
spirituality will leave enough resources for everybody on this planet
without polluting it. Thus for people in west the choice is between
disaster (according to the latest Pentagon report on Global warming) and
sustainable and conflict free world. You all might like to read the
following article on this theme.
http://education.vsnl.com/nimbkar/economist.html

Cheers. Anil K Rajvanshi

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Feb 23 09:07:49 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.100749.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Here are some good articles on Global Warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/0,12374,782494,00.html

See also "Meltdown"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1146859,00.html

Best wishes,

Kevin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon Feb 23 10:35:07 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.173507.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

Kevin's reference article has the following:

"Alaskan wintertime temperatures have risen by an average of 6C, Weller told
me. "

"...and the record shows that the first day of spring has advanced by more
than a week since the 1920s.

So was this global warming, I asked Weller. His answer was unequivocal. "I
think it's clearly understood and clearly accepted by the scientific
community that this is in part due to the human-induced global greenhouse
effect." This greenhouse effect, he explained, was amplified at high
latitudes by a positive feedback: once snow and ice begin to melt, the
reflectivity of the earth's surface decreases, allowing more of the sun's
heat to be absorbed. This in turn melts more ice and snow, further reducing
the planet's albedo (reflective power), allowing still more warming, and so
on. "

This is the interesting part: "is in part due to the human-induced global
greenhouse effect."

I would like to point out that the usual claim is for about 1 degree of
warming due to human influence, based on certain models of climate change.
Please remember my post of a few days ago when I calculated that the CO2
from stoves was already in the atmosphere 100 years ago when most people
cooked that way - about a billion I said. The increase over 1 billion is
what we will have to consider when we talk about an _increase_ in stove
associated CO2.

The claim (again and from another source this time) of a 6 degree increase
is interesting. This is very much more than the 1 degree claim for human
activity, and if the heating is being concentrated in the far norht, what
about all the other heating that we are seeing?

My proffered explanation is that there has been a major change in the
weather patterns and that heat is being pumped from the low latitudes to the
higher ones, and that this is the cause of the obvious and dramatic change
in the Arctic and Antarctic. How much of this is due to humans is not at
all clear because if this is what is going on, then measuring temperatures
anywhere between 20 and 80 degrees latitude would give some sort of
increase.

What I have not seen is a demonstration of the amount of total extra heat
being detected and related to latitude so that if there is total warming
going, it can show up clearly as a net heat flux increase.

If the tropics are cooling, then the heat is probably going north. This
should also be quantifiable if the numbers are gathered. It seems to me
there simply isn't enough data. The whole subject is filled with
speculation with my ideas as likely as the next man's.

To me there is no gain in spending time on the GW issue here at stoves. Our
major challenge is indoor air quality. We have to clear up the combustion
and reduce the consumption.

Regards
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Feb 23 11:27:04 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.122704.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Crispin
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Energy Conflict resolution

> Dear Stovers
>
> Kevin's reference article has the following:
>
> "Alaskan wintertime temperatures have risen by an average of 6C, Weller
told
> me. "

That is phenomenal. As I understand it, this is at the "worst case scenario
level" for rate of temperature increase.
>
> "...and the record shows that the first day of spring has advanced by more
> than a week since the 1920s.

That is about 80 years. What would be really interesting is to see if most
of that week of advance occurred within say the last 5 or 10 years.
>
> So was this global warming, I asked Weller. His answer was unequivocal. "I
> think it's clearly understood and clearly accepted by the scientific
> community that this is in part due to the human-induced global greenhouse
> effect."

The changes in Alaska prove "Alaska Warming, and "Alaska Climate Change", or
at least, "Alaska Weath Change." However, it does not prove Global Warming
or Global Climate Change. Now here is "the biggie"... IN PART due to
human-induced global greenhouse effect"

The question is how much is Man contributing to the GW effect, and even more
importantly, can Man make any changes that would contribute to a meaningful
reduction in the effect?

This greenhouse effect, he explained, was amplified at high
> latitudes by a positive feedback: once snow and ice begin to melt, the
> reflectivity of the earth's surface decreases, allowing more of the sun's
> heat to be absorbed. This in turn melts more ice and snow, further
reducing
> the planet's albedo (reflective power), allowing still more warming, and
so
> on. "
>
This is an extremely important mechanism. If it comes into play, then this
is a key factor in the "Run Away Warming" scenario.

> This is the interesting part: "is in part due to the human-induced global
> greenhouse effect."
>
> I would like to point out that the usual claim is for about 1 degree of
> warming due to human influence, based on certain models of climate change.
> Please remember my post of a few days ago when I calculated that the CO2
> from stoves was already in the atmosphere 100 years ago when most people
> cooked that way - about a billion I said. The increase over 1 billion is
> what we will have to consider when we talk about an _increase_ in stove
> associated CO2.

If the increment in CO2 comes from biomass, there is no net addition of "new
carbon" to the biosphere." This holds true over the longer term, but over
the short term, there would definitely be an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere, until such time as the "replacement biomass" retrieved it. This
"short term CO2 could be a "valid contributor" to a "Run away global
warming" scenario, if it is enough to send the system over the "trip point."
>
> The claim (again and from another source this time) of a 6 degree increase
> is interesting. This is very much more than the 1 degree claim for human
> activity, and if the heating is being concentrated in the far norht, what
> about all the other heating that we are seeing?
>
> My proffered explanation is that there has been a major change in the
> weather patterns and that heat is being pumped from the low latitudes to
the
> higher ones, and that this is the cause of the obvious and dramatic change
> in the Arctic and Antarctic.

I would strongly agree with you on the importance of change in weather
patterns as a major contributor to "local climate change." The key thing is
the Jet Stream. It comes East off the Pacific, and is very fickle, like a
loose fire hose. If it "turns left" when it hits the West Coast, its warmth
and rain load are sent North; California and Lower British Columbia can get
dessicated.

How much of this is due to humans is not at
> all clear because if this is what is going on, then measuring temperatures
> anywhere between 20 and 80 degrees latitude would give some sort of
> increase.

I would suggest that this would give an indication of what is happening
between 20 and 80 Latitude, but it would not at all be reflective of Global
Warming or Global Cooling. Most of the fundamentally important weather
phenomenon originate in your excluded zones.
>
> What I have not seen is a demonstration of the amount of total extra heat
> being detected and related to latitude so that if there is total warming
> going, it can show up clearly as a net heat flux increase.
>
Me neither. This is why I question "Global Warming". There is no question
that there is "Weather Change" and "Local Warming" and "Local Cooling", but
this cannot in any way be termed "Global Warming" until, as you say, a "net
warming balance" is shown.

> If the tropics are cooling, then the heat is probably going north. This
> should also be quantifiable if the numbers are gathered. It seems to me
> there simply isn't enough data. The whole subject is filled with
> speculation with my ideas as likely as the next man's.
>
Agreed. There is also a dangerous carelessness with terms. Very little care
is used to distinguish between "Global" and "Local", and "Weather" and
Climate."

> To me there is no gain in spending time on the GW issue here at stoves.
Our
> major challenge is indoor air quality. We have to clear up the combustion
> and reduce the consumption.
>
Now you are getting back to what this list is all about: This List can do
something about stoves and IAQ, and bring a better life to those who use
biomass sourced fuels.

Best Wishes,

Kevin

> Regards
> Crispin

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Mon Feb 23 15:41:22 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: Biomass conf in Rome 10 - 14 May
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.144122.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

Who among us might be attending the 2nd World Biomass Conf in Rome on 10-14
May this year?

website: www.conference-biomass.com and says 181 abstracts on
gasification&pyrolysis, and 88 on combustion, etc. etc. etc. for over 1000
abstracts.

And I wonder how much it relates to what is being done at the Sustainable
Resources conference ( #2 is 27 Sept to 2 Oct 2004 in Boulder, CO)?

Can anyone clarify if the Biomass Conf is more for the "BIG" guys (large
processing and large usage of biomass), and if the Sustainable Resources is
more for the smaller operations, such as directed toward household
usage? Some surely go to both meetings.

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Tue Feb 24 02:01:20 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040222164039.01fb71a0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.070120.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Paul,
You can successfully cook on one candle:

Get an empty baked bean tin, cut small slots horizontally just below the
unopened end. (To ace as a flue passage)

invert the tin over a candle so the flame is just below the unopenned end.

Cook on top ! eggs are possible also small Pancakes

(don't get a lot of light though!

Enjoy

Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Paul S. Anderson
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 22:49
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] One candle of heat

Stovers,

One "candle power" usually refers to an amount of light. I would like to
know what one candle produces in terms of heat. Assume an average candle
(Not birthday nor big decorative candle.)

Maybe this sounds silly. But making one cup of tea before sun-rise
(therefore, by the light of one candle in a small house in a remote area)
just might be important to some people.

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Feb 24 06:26:14 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040222164039.01fb71a0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.112614.0000.>

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:49:29 -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>Stovers,
>
>One "candle power" usually refers to an amount of light. I would like to
>know what one candle produces in terms of heat. Assume an average candle
>(Not birthday nor big decorative candle.)

We need a weight and consumption in order to calculate the mass used
in liberation of heat. I think candle making is a well known science
where the relationship of the wick and its length to the diameter is
important, more wick-> bigger flame-> more radiant feedback-> more wax
liquified to feed flame.
>
>Then, assume that the candle heat could be put into water in a VERY well
>insulated container (with some lose -- would that be 30%?? --because it
>must have its own "chimney effect" to move the hot gases). In such as
>situation, how long would it take one candle to heat one cup of water (what
>is one cup in metric milli-liters??)

How long depends on the power of the flame, final temperature depends
on the energy libErated and the efficiency of delivering it into the
water.

My tea cup contains about 200ml=0.2kg. To raise this from 10C to
boiling requires 4.2kJ/kg per degree C =4.2*.2*90=75.6kJ

Delivered at your 30% efficiency this would need 8 grammes of candle
wax with a cv of 28MJ/kg.

Now someone better check my maths.
>
>Maybe this sounds silly. But making one cup of tea before sun-rise
>(therefore, by the light of one candle in a small house in a remote area)
>just might be important to some people.

Equip the candle with a glass tube and arrange the air supply to run
down the side of the glass before being sucked into the candle flame
and you have light and a stove. In fact my first experiments with the
idd principle used a clear glass bottle with the bottom removed so
That I could see the offgas prior to it being burned.

AJH

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue Feb 24 10:03:43 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.170343.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Paul

An ordinary 'utility' candle weighing 75gm lasts 6 to 10 hours depending on
room temp.

At 28MJ/Kg that is about 100 watts output.

Regards
Crispin

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Tue Feb 24 10:12:46 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.081246.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Andrew and stovers:

1. Thanks for the data today on candle power. (and also to Gavin).
Didn't check your numbers but they sounded OK.

2. I am intrigued by your last paragraph: which read:

> Equip the candle with a glass tube and arrange the air supply to run
> down the side of the glass before being sucked into the candle flame
> and you have light and a stove. In fact my first experiments with the
> idd principle used a clear glass bottle with the bottom removed so
> That I could see the offgas prior to it being burned.

a. Could you give a little more detail on this? Your "down the side of
the glass" means inside the "bottle" I presume. What did you mean by
"arrange"? How did you handle the lower air supply (not a problem with a
candle)? What were the sizes - especially of the wood and the wood
container?

b. I don't recall your previously mentioning this idea (either from our
discussions in your home or in any "stoves" list conversations) with
"idd" - where you presumably had to have two air supplies and maybe some
control of the lower one. Did you see merit in the lighting application?
Where would you put the glass and how much glass area is needed if you
wanted both lighting and cooking? Was there much heating of the glass (to
point of breaking)? Any way to describe the magnitude of the radiant power
out?

c. Just hoping you could expand some more on your early pyrolysis work.
As a point of comparison, I found that I could usually look through the
secondary air holes (a slit when using two cans) and thought I could see
most of what was going on. But I never tried a large expanse of glass nor
your use of it with the air supply. For those who haven't seen this, the
flame in this sort of stove looks "exactly" like a candle flame - but is
"inverted". That is the center of the flame is air and the combustible
gases diffuse into the air. In a candle flame, the outer air (oxygen) is
diffusing into the central combustible gases. I should modify the above and
say that with the pyrolysis process, the secondary air flame always looked
more steady and less "lazy" or "wispy" - at least when there was enough
restriction of the secondary air.

d. For others who might want to try this, the use of glass should solve
some problems with a small breeze being a pretty big problem for pyrolysis
top-lit stoves. Andrew's suggestion of controlling air flow down the inside
of a glass tube will both keep soot from forming there and do some useful
preheating. I believe there are some useful ideas hidden in what Andrew has
brought up.

Ron

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Feb 24 10:42:36 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.114236.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Gavin

Thanks very much for your perspective on what a candle will do.

I think Paul had a very good question, about the heating aspects of candles.
It would indeed be very helpful to know the BTU/Hr, or watt output from a
candle. It would put many things into perspective.

I have been recently accused of asking too many questions and not providing
enough answers: openly by one esteemed List Member, and probably privately
by many others. Unless someone on the List already knows the answer, I will
do the necessary fundamental research to determine the heat output from a
typical candle.

I will totally fund this Research Program myself, since I do have the
qualifications and resources to undertake such a program. As Lyndon Johnson
said, on declining to re-offer for the Presidency "I will not seek, and
shall not accept" funding offers for this seminal research project.

The advantage of this approach, for me, is that I get to choose how to
report the results. All the basic work will be done using the Old Fart
system of units... BTU, pound, hour, inch, etc. Those doing the Peer Review
work will have to get out their own conversion tables.

I would expect to have this work completed and ready for Peer Review before
the end of the First Quarter of 2004. The work will be fully documented, and
the methodology employed will be such that critical reviewers can duplicate
the work exactly to verify the posted results.

Kevin Chisholm, MD, DD, LLD
:-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

> Paul,
> You can successfully cook on one candle:
>
> Get an empty baked bean tin, cut small slots horizontally just below the
> unopened end. (To ace as a flue passage)
>
> invert the tin over a candle so the flame is just below the unopenned end.
>
> Cook on top ! eggs are possible also small Pancakes
>
> (don't get a lot of light though!
>
> Enjoy
>
> Gavin
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

From karabi_d at SIFY.COM Tue Feb 24 11:12:27 2004
From: karabi_d at SIFY.COM (Dutta)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.214227.0530.KARABID@SIFY.COM>

Stovers,
I have been following this interesting exchange of notes on 1 candle of
heat, which will also provide light. The idea of making a cup of tea by
candle light and on candle light ( flame I guess) sounds academically
speaking quite feasible as calculated by Andrew Heggie.

But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax and a
wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens the
wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated wicks can
release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.

Lead is particularly dangerous for children because it hampers brain
development. Now researchers at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in Durham, North Carolina have found that burning a leaded-wick candle
raises particulates to dangerous levels not just near the candle but
throughout the house.

Although National Candle Association (USA) have voluntarily agreed more than
25 years ago not to use lead wicks there are no laws banning its manufacture
in USA so approximately 10% of the candles made in USA still have lead
wicks.In the Far East candles are generally made with lead wicks.

Burning just one average leaded-wick candle for only four hours will raise
the lead levels to 6.2 micrograms per cubic metre in the room with the
candle and to 2 ?g/m3 throughout the rest of the house. The US National Air
Quality Standard for lead set by the EPA is 1.5 ?ig/m3.

If you wish to know more about candles please look up this site.
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/view/104/forum.htm

Karabi
--
Dr.Karabi Dutta.
Breathe Easy Network India http://india.shellfoundation.net
About me:
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/User:KarabiDutta
Email me at: karabi@shellfoundation.net
---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:49:29 -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> >Stovers,
> >
> >One "candle power" usually refers to an amount of light. I would like to
> >know what one candle produces in terms of heat. Assume an average
candle
> >(Not birthday nor big decorative candle.)
>
> We need a weight and consumption in order to calculate the mass used
> in liberation of heat. I think candle making is a well known science
> where the relationship of the wick and its length to the diameter is
> important, more wick-> bigger flame-> more radiant feedback-> more wax
> liquified to feed flame.
> >
> >Then, assume that the candle heat could be put into water in a VERY well
> >insulated container (with some lose -- would that be 30%?? --because it
> >must have its own "chimney effect" to move the hot gases). In such as
> >situation, how long would it take one candle to heat one cup of water
(what
> >is one cup in metric milli-liters??)
>
> How long depends on the power of the flame, final temperature depends
> on the energy libErated and the efficiency of delivering it into the
> water.
>
> My tea cup contains about 200ml=0.2kg. To raise this from 10C to
> boiling requires 4.2kJ/kg per degree C =4.2*.2*90=75.6kJ
>
> Delivered at your 30% efficiency this would need 8 grammes of candle
> wax with a cv of 28MJ/kg.
>
> Now someone better check my maths.
> >
> >Maybe this sounds silly. But making one cup of tea before sun-rise
> >(therefore, by the light of one candle in a small house in a remote area)
> >just might be important to some people.
>
> Equip the candle with a glass tube and arrange the air supply to run
> down the side of the glass before being sucked into the candle flame
> and you have light and a stove. In fact my first experiments with the
> idd principle used a clear glass bottle with the bottom removed so
> That I could see the offgas prior to it being burned.
>
> AJH

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Tue Feb 24 11:18:25 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.161825.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Stovers,

One candle power is generally reckonned to be approximately 40 Watts of heat
output for a small "night-light" increasing to nearer 100W for a larger
diameter wick candle.

regards,

Ken

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Feb 24 12:02:13 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <006b01c3fae7$ba5c33e0$2a47fea9@md>
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.170213.0000.>

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:03:43 +0200, Crispin wrote:

>
>At 28MJ/Kg that is about 100 watts output.

A couple of points, I was surprised to see candle wax quoted at such
a low cv I had expected it to be up above 35MJ/kg like other
hydrocarbons. The other is that it is fairly poor at converting heat
to light when compared with grid power and fluorescent lights. Has
anyone similar figures for a paraffin Tilley lamp, I have boiled water
on mine.
AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Feb 24 12:25:25 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <02e801c3fae8$a9b56560$3c6d0443@net>
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.172525.0000.>

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:12:46 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:

> 2. I am intrigued by your last paragraph: which read:
>
>> Equip the candle with a glass tube and arrange the air supply to run
>> down the side of the glass before being sucked into the candle flame
>> and you have light and a stove. In fact my first experiments with the
>> idd principle used a clear glass bottle with the bottom removed so
>> That I could see the offgas prior to it being burned.
>
> a. Could you give a little more detail on this? Your "down the side of
>the glass" means inside the "bottle" I presume.

Yes I meant The incoming air would wash the sides of the glass to keep
it clean and cool, after all normal glass will trap the low frequency
infra red and turn it to heat. If the glass were thick the
differential expansion could crack the glass. On the other hand if
this air became too hot it would soften the candle.

> What did you mean by
>"arrange"?

I didn't mean I had tried a specific method, I wonder if the air flow
velocities are low enough to prevent turbulence then I could see the
possibility of a shroud around the candle, below the flame, setting up
a thermo syphon, with additional pull being provided by a cylindrical
shroud above the glass with good internal insulation to "chimney" the
hot gasses to the cup.

> How did you handle the lower air supply (not a problem with a
>candle)? What were the sizes - especially of the wood and the wood
>container?

Ronal I cannot remember, I played with many configurations, I do
remember the make of beer bottle though :-)
>
> b. I don't recall your previously mentioning this idea (either from our
>discussions in your home or in any "stoves" list conversations) with
>"idd" - where you presumably had to have two air supplies and maybe some
>control of the lower one. Did you see merit in the lighting application?
>Where would you put the glass and how much glass area is needed if you
>wanted both lighting and cooking? Was there much heating of the glass (to
>point of breaking)? Any way to describe the magnitude of the radiant power
>out?

When I was using the bottle to view the offgas burning I was trying to
figure what would cause the flaming offgas to burn back through the
bottles contents and re ignite at the pyrolysis front. After
establishing the diffuse flame at the bottle top I was then entraining
air to see if I could premix the secondary air and offgas. I cannot
remember any success. I see now I have a few photographs of a similar
experiment in 1997 where I sat the bottle on a small retort heated by
a fire.

http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/andrew.heggie/agwaste/lignacandle.jpg

In this photo the diffuse flame shows no premixing took place,
presumably because the evolution of offgas raised the pressure in the
bottle to overcome any chimney effect that could have drawn secondary
air in. It also illustrates the staining of the glass by condensing
tars.
>
> c. Just hoping you could expand some more on your early pyrolysis work.
>As a point of comparison, I found that I could usually look through the
>secondary air holes (a slit when using two cans) and thought I could see
>most of what was going on. But I never tried a large expanse of glass nor
>your use of it with the air supply. For those who haven't seen this, the
>flame in this sort of stove looks "exactly" like a candle flame - but is
>"inverted". That is the center of the flame is air and the combustible
>gases diffuse into the air.

Yes I called this and inverted flame, but note in this photo that has
not occurred, if the flame speed had been high enough it would have
happened at the base of the bottle.

> In a candle flame, the outer air (oxygen) is
>diffusing into the central combustible gases. I should modify the above and
>say that with the pyrolysis process, the secondary air flame always looked
>more steady and less "lazy" or "wispy" - at least when there was enough
>restriction of the secondary air.
>
> d. For others who might want to try this, the use of glass should solve
>some problems with a small breeze being a pretty big problem for pyrolysis
>top-lit stoves. Andrew's suggestion of controlling air flow down the inside
>of a glass tube will both keep soot from forming there and do some useful
>preheating.

Yes this latter bit was my aim.

AJH ps excuse the occasional upper case, my little finger is operating
the caps lock without my knowledge ;-).

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue Feb 24 19:57:33 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:52 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.025733.0200.>

Dear Karabi and Clean Air Proponents

Thank you very much for the information on lead in candle wicks.

I have promoted rural home-made candle production as an introduction to
informal sector income generation for more than 20 years. Thre is even
a booklet on the subject showing how to make 150 candles per hour
without buying any equipment. We have always recommended the use of No.
104 cotton twine as the wick. It is available as an 'unpolished' twine
for use in the hand weaving industry. It is fluffy and gives
approximately the same light as a flat woven braid, costs less and is
more available.

Also, there is a young man doing his Master's Degree at the Johannesburg
Technikon developing a stove that will use cheap waste wax as a fuel.
We corresponded a couple of times and I suggested a fuel consumption of
4 grammes per minute as a desireable power level. I can't remember
offhand what that was in power (about 2 Kw) but I agree with Andrew H
that 28 MJ/Kg is a bit low as a heat content of the fuel.

His contact details are:
Ryan Fowler, visionarypants@hotmail.com

He won a competition in 4th year with a prototype wax fuelled cooker and
SASOL I think is assisting him at the moment. The wick is one of the
challenges to be overcome.

Regards
Crispin

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 24 February 2004 18:12
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax and
a wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens
the wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated
wicks can release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.

[snip]

Karabi
--
Dr.Karabi Dutta.
Breathe Easy Network India http://india.shellfoundation.net About me:
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/User:KarabiDutta

From robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR Tue Feb 24 20:43:52 2004
From: robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR (=?Windows-1252?Q?Roberto_Escard=F3?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.224352.0300.ROBERTOESCARDO@ARNET.COM.AR>

More about:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Roberto.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Tue Feb 24 23:11:01 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.211101.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Andrew -

1. Thanks for your full answers. I hope we can hear from others on the
subject of using glass with pyrolysis (or any) stoves. Getting light out of
a stove could be a big plus in many kitchens - and I thnk we have just
started to understand the issue. Incidentally, a few months ago I cleaned
out a local "used-goods" store of their glass "hurricane" lamp "bowls" -
five or six I think for about 25-50 cents each - all different sizes. Now I
have to try some tests as well.

2. Back to the world of "candles", I hope we can hear from some of the
few "stoves" list members who have in the past talked about the benefits of
using seed oils - for both lighting and cooking (and maybe together). I
think there are some natural "seed" products which are solid at room
temperature - but many/most are I guess liquid. There are many non-edible
oils that can be combusted very cleanly and come at low or no cost (if
picked in the field).

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: One candle of heat

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@DTN.NTL.COM>
> Organization: At home
> Subject: Re: One candle of heat
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:12:46 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:
>
> > 2. I am intrigued by your last paragraph: which read:
> >
> >> Equip the candle with a glass tube and arrange the air supply to run
> >> down the side of the glass before being sucked into the candle flame
> >> and you have light and a stove. In fact my first experiments with the
> >> idd principle used a clear glass bottle with the bottom removed so
> >> That I could see the offgas prior to it being burned.
> >
> > a. Could you give a little more detail on this? Your "down the side
of
> >the glass" means inside the "bottle" I presume.
>
> Yes I meant The incoming air would wash the sides of the glass to keep
> it clean and cool, after all normal glass will trap the low frequency
> infra red and turn it to heat. If the glass were thick the
> differential expansion could crack the glass. On the other hand if
> this air became too hot it would soften the candle.
>
> > What did you mean by
> >"arrange"?
>
> I didn't mean I had tried a specific method, I wonder if the air flow
> velocities are low enough to prevent turbulence then I could see the
> possibility of a shroud around the candle, below the flame, setting up
> a thermo syphon, with additional pull being provided by a cylindrical
> shroud above the glass with good internal insulation to "chimney" the
> hot gasses to the cup.
>
> > How did you handle the lower air supply (not a problem with a
> >candle)? What were the sizes - especially of the wood and the wood
> >container?
>
> Ronal I cannot remember, I played with many configurations, I do
> remember the make of beer bottle though :-)
> >
> > b. I don't recall your previously mentioning this idea (either from
our
> >discussions in your home or in any "stoves" list conversations) with
> >"idd" - where you presumably had to have two air supplies and maybe some
> >control of the lower one. Did you see merit in the lighting application?
> >Where would you put the glass and how much glass area is needed if you
> >wanted both lighting and cooking? Was there much heating of the glass
(to
> >point of breaking)? Any way to describe the magnitude of the radiant
power
> >out?
>
> When I was using the bottle to view the offgas burning I was trying to
> figure what would cause the flaming offgas to burn back through the
> bottles contents and re ignite at the pyrolysis front. After
> establishing the diffuse flame at the bottle top I was then entraining
> air to see if I could premix the secondary air and offgas. I cannot
> remember any success. I see now I have a few photographs of a similar
> experiment in 1997 where I sat the bottle on a small retort heated by
> a fire.
>
> http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/andrew.heggie/agwaste/lignacandle.jpg
>
> In this photo the diffuse flame shows no premixing took place,
> presumably because the evolution of offgas raised the pressure in the
> bottle to overcome any chimney effect that could have drawn secondary
> air in. It also illustrates the staining of the glass by condensing
> tars.
> >
> > c. Just hoping you could expand some more on your early pyrolysis
work.
> >As a point of comparison, I found that I could usually look through the
> >secondary air holes (a slit when using two cans) and thought I could see
> >most of what was going on. But I never tried a large expanse of glass
nor
> >your use of it with the air supply. For those who haven't seen this,
the
> >flame in this sort of stove looks "exactly" like a candle flame - but is
> >"inverted". That is the center of the flame is air and the combustible
> >gases diffuse into the air.
>
> Yes I called this and inverted flame, but note in this photo that has
> not occurred, if the flame speed had been high enough it would have
> happened at the base of the bottle.
>
> > In a candle flame, the outer air (oxygen) is
> >diffusing into the central combustible gases. I should modify the above
and
> >say that with the pyrolysis process, the secondary air flame always
looked
> >more steady and less "lazy" or "wispy" - at least when there was enough
> >restriction of the secondary air.
> >
> > d. For others who might want to try this, the use of glass should
solve
> >some problems with a small breeze being a pretty big problem for
pyrolysis
> >top-lit stoves. Andrew's suggestion of controlling air flow down the
inside
> >of a glass tube will both keep soot from forming there and do some useful
> >preheating.
>
> Yes this latter bit was my aim.
>
> AJH ps excuse the occasional upper case, my little finger is operating
> the caps lock without my knowledge ;-).
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Feb 24 23:54:03 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.005403.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

The burning rate of a candle is a function of the wick and the fuel type. A
candle wick can burn anwheres from 1.65 to 8.65 grams of paraffin per hour,
a factor of about 5. So, depending on the particular candle one selected,
one could get a wide range of results.

Standard candle (Photom.), a special form of candle employed as a standard
in photometric measurements; usually, a candle of spermaceti so constructed
as to burn at the rate of 120 grains, or 7.8 grams, per hour.

As could be guessed, the "Standard Candle" puts out 1 candle power. :-)

I can't find the heating value of Spermaceti, but I am guessing that it
would be about 20,000 BTU per pound., or say about 44 BTU per gram. If the
candle burns 7.8 grams per hour, the heat release rate would be about 343
BTU per hour. However, it could range from about 70 to 380 BTU/Hour.

Since there are 3.412 BTU/hr in a watt, the wattpower of a candle can vary
from about 20 watts to about 111.

Ken Boak's estimate:
"One candle power is generally reckonned to be approximately 40 Watts of
heat
output for a small "night-light" increasing to nearer 100W for a larger
diameter wick candle."

was bang on!!

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

Wattpower... what a neat name for a website: www.wattpower.com. :-)

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Wed Feb 25 06:53:49 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.125349.0100.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

> a booklet on the subject showing how to make 150 candles per hour
> without buying any equipment. We have always recommended the
> use of No.
> 104 cotton twine as the wick. It is available as an
> 'unpolished' twine
> for use in the hand weaving industry. It is fluffy and gives
> approximately the same light as a flat woven braid, costs less and is
> more available.

I thought that unbraided wicks had the problem of not bending out to the side of the flame and being autoshortened. A simple string tends to become longer in the flame as the candle burns down and results in a growing and, I believe I've seen , somewhat smokey flame.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Feb 25 08:39:10 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.063910.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Stovers:

As a flame officenado I have stared into candle flames all my life - and my
wife hesitates to put them on a dinner table because I'm hypnotized.

Around the turn of the century Michael Faraday gave Christmas lectures at
the Royal Society and they were wildly popular. One of them, "The CHemical
History of the Candle" is still available ($9.95 new at Amazon). It
explains all of chemistry and physics, starting from simple phenomena in the
candle.

Emerson said "Everything in Nature contains all the powers of Nature;
Everything is made of the same hidden stuff". This certainly applies to the
candle and I recommend understanding much of combustion theory starting
here.

~~~~~~~~~
The word snuff has several meanings. The noun means the blackened wick
inside or outside the candle flame. In the US all candles I have met are
"curly". A strand has been shortened so that the wick naturally curls, but
is held straight until the wax melts away. When the snuff curls outside the
flame, air reaches it and burns it off. However, I remember on a trip to
India noting that all their candles have straight wicks. As the candle
burns the wick gets longer and longer and makes a smoky flame. I was
astounded that such an ancient civilization hadn't discovered the simple
solution of the curly wick and briefly thought of revolullltionizing the
Indian candle business.

The verb snuff means to extinguish as in candle snuffer. But there are two
kinds. The common kind today merely puts out the flame, but before curly
wicks there were special scissors that snipped off the excess snuff and
prevented smoky slames and pieces of snuff falling and starting a fire.

~~~~~~~~~~
I believe that there are other chemicals which can make non luminous
"candles". They would be more useful for chaffing dishes, making tea etc.

Anyone interested in a little chemistry?

TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Forssell" <jeff.forssell@CFL.SE>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

> > a booklet on the subject showing how to make 150 candles per hour
> > without buying any equipment. We have always recommended the
> > use of No.
> > 104 cotton twine as the wick. It is available as an
> > 'unpolished' twine
> > for use in the hand weaving industry. It is fluffy and gives
> > approximately the same light as a flat woven braid, costs less and is
> > more available.
>
> I thought that unbraided wicks had the problem of not bending out to the
side of the flame and being autoshortened. A simple string tends to become
longer in the flame as the candle burns down and results in a growing and, I
believe I've seen , somewhat smokey flame.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Feb 25 09:23:06 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <003601c3faf1$002e4300$7e40d6d2@q2n0f4>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.082306.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:42:27PM +0530, Dutta wrote:
> Stovers,
> I have been following this interesting exchange of notes on 1 candle of
> heat, which will also provide light. The idea of making a cup of tea by
> candle light and on candle light ( flame I guess) sounds academically
> speaking quite feasible as calculated by Andrew Heggie.
>
> But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax and a
> wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens the
> wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated wicks can
> release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.

I recently heard someone on the radio warning about burning candles in the
home, that paraffin candles put out quite a bit of pollutants whereas beeswax
candles didn't. I can't recall the exact figures.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Wed Feb 25 09:40:33 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C0ACC7B@floyd.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.144033.0000.>

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:53:49 +0100, Jeff Forssell wrote:

>I thought that unbraided wicks had the problem of not bending out to the side of the flame and being autoshortened. A simple string tends to become longer in the flame as the candle burns down and results in a growing and, I believe I've seen , somewhat smokey flame.

I knew there was something special about braided wicks somehow
limiting the flame to prevent soot. Michael Faraday gave his Christmas
lectures in 1860 on the science and chemistry of candles.

AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Feb 25 11:32:15 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.220215.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Tom,
you expressed astonishment over the fact that an ancient civilization like
the Indian one did not discover the advantage of a candle with a curly wick.
Actually, the candle never belonged to the Indian culture. Traditionally,
we always used an oil lamp, having a wick made of cotton fibres. The candle
was introduced into India by the Westerners, rather recently in our history.
The fact that canldes belonged to the Western culture is borne out by the
fact that in India, the Christians burn candles in their churches, and
during festivals like Christmas, whereas, even today, we use oil lamps in
our temples and in religious festivals.
Yours
Nandu

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed Feb 25 12:00:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.190018.0200.>

Dear Nandu

I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
thing.

To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too hot
for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!

The Inuit people in the far north use oil lamps, as did the people in
'Bible days' in the Middle East. In the north they had diffculty
getting wicks, perhaps, or it was the wrong type of fat.

Did people cook with vegetable and animal oil fires? Lots of wicks?

So where did this candle technology originate? "Paraffin wax" candles
with stearin (strearic acid) are very recent.

Regards
Crispin surrounded by "Swazi Candles"

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf Of adkarve
Sent: 25 February 2004 18:32
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Candle and the Indian civilization

Dear Tom,
you expressed astonishment over the fact that an ancient civilization
like the Indian one did not discover the advantage of a candle with a
curly wick. Actually, the candle never belonged to the Indian culture.
Traditionally, we always used an oil lamp, having a wick made of cotton
fibres. The candle was introduced into India by the Westerners, rather
recently in our history. The fact that canldes belonged to the Western
culture is borne out by the fact that in India, the Christians burn
candles in their churches, and during festivals like Christmas, whereas,
even today, we use oil lamps in our temples and in religious festivals.
Yours Nandu

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Feb 25 13:38:29 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
In-Reply-To: <000001c3fbc0$da029200$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.123829.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Nandu
>
> I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
> candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> thing.
>
> To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too hot
> for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!

Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred animals,
etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more likely. Also
there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by early white
settlers and probably indigs as well.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Feb 25 16:17:03 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <053b01c3fb55$620b3740$3c6d0443@net>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.151703.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ron mentioned this topic (below) and I hope that someone can provide some
leads.

In the case of the top-lit gasifiers, I find it important to have a
conveniently volatile "starter" to get the initial fire (for pyrolysis)
going. I cannot directly pour on a liquid, because it will drip too low
into the fuel bed. But I can put the liquid onto something (I have used
wood chips, corn cobs, and char-pieces very successfully), and then place
that into the top of the fuel to be lighted easily. A single match was
usually enough to start my stove.

Among my successful experiments:

1. Citronella (Tiki-torch fuel) oil.

2. Kerosene (parafin, in many countries) (but use VERY sparingly or you
will get black soot in the initial flames until the kerosene is gone.)

3. Alcohol (95% and better)

4. Gel-fuel (can even be squirted on directly because it does not drip.)

(5. Some regular cooking oil and meat fat did NOT give me as good of a
start-up flame as I wanted).

:-)) I remember chatting with Crispin (maybe 2 years ago) about lighting
my early stoves with citronella in wood chips, and he (jokingly) said that
I "cheated" with the starting of the fire because rural folk would not have
such volatile substances for fire starting.

So, if a sufficient number and variety of "starting materials" can be named
(and have low cost and wide geographic distribution), then all of us could
have easier ways to start our fires (even Crispin :-)) ).

Paul

At 09:11 PM 2/24/04 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:
> 2. Back to the world of "candles", I hope we can hear from some of the
>few "stoves" list members who have in the past talked about the benefits of
>using seed oils - for both lighting and cooking (and maybe together). I
>think there are some natural "seed" products which are solid at room
>temperature - but many/most are I guess liquid. There are many non-edible
>oils that can be combusted very cleanly and come at low or no cost (if
>picked in the field).
>
>Ron

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed Feb 25 17:00:02 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One candle of
heat
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.000002.0200.>

Dear Paul

What about grass soaked in alcohol? That is widely available as it is
used to start paraffin stoves.

The green gel is unavailable.

Paraffin is good I think - it is fast and the soaking of little bits of
wood works well. I found they work much better if they are soaked for a
day or so.

I must say that conventional white block fire starters work well and
they are available in most large shops.

Regards
Crispin

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 25 February 2004 23:17
Subject: [STOVES] Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One
candle of heat

Ron mentioned this topic (below) and I hope that someone can provide
some leads.

In the case of the top-lit gasifiers, I find it important to have a
conveniently volatile "starter" to get the initial fire (for pyrolysis)
going. I cannot directly pour on a liquid, because it will drip too low
into the fuel bed. But I can put the liquid onto something (I have used
wood chips, corn cobs, and char-pieces very successfully), and then
place that into the top of the fuel to be lighted easily. A single
match was usually enough to start my stove.

Among my successful experiments:
[snip]

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Feb 25 17:07:05 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Monorator Woodchip drier -- was: Re: [GASL] FW: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.160705.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

On the Gasification list serve there was a recent message of possible
interest to Stovers. I am sending to you (Stovers) my reply, with the
website about the "monorator"

Greg (message left below) mentions his "monorator" . Well, if you do
not know what a monorator is, and if you have any interest in using fuels
that are with HIGH moisture (especially if in a cold climate for some
months), then go to this site that I found via Google. The article is
dated 21 July 1945 -- yes., nearly 60 years ago. We have so much to
learn from those who led the world in gasification during WWII.

http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/monorator-eng.html#fig6

And Greg, please tell me (us) more about hoggers and where they are used
/made?? in North America. I want "chunkies" of wood, not shreds.

Thanks, Greg, for a great message.

Paul

At 12:34 PM 2/24/04 -0600, a31ford wrote:
>Wynn,
>
>I'll give you some hints, if you are dealing with wood chips,
>
>1) Most tree chippers in north America are of the method of "Shear" where as
>the chips are truly sheared from the log generally on a 22.5 or 33.3 degree
>angle. These chips are thin (generally under 1/4" thick) and are usually had
>from "whole tree" chipping (as in the branches & leaves ALSO get chipped).
>This poses a problem for most homemade gasifiers, as that the really fine
>stuff ends up clogging feeders, bridging in the hopper or gasifier, or at
>worst "channeling" with the gasifier itself, causing a host of other
>problems.
>
>2) Most of the European units are called "hoggers" where as the unit
>produces "Cubes" NOT chips (They actually look like little boxes) these are
>generally gotten from strictly trunk or large branch stock only, AND what I
>have seen, & heard, is that generally the branches & leafy stuff is done in
>a separate run (as to get different piles of stock)
>
>3) If one adopts the European method of doing separate runs (even with a
>chipper) at least the leafy content is removed and the actual "trunk" chips
>are much easier to deal with, HOWEVER, if you are like me, and get most of
>your chips from the local tree service people, or the companies that clear
>electric poles & lines, you will have to deal with "what you get" (generally
>everything, chips, leafy bits, & twigs/sticks) all of this will generally
>cause great fits late in the evening, when your gasifier goes "Channel" when
>you least want it to, and hours of work, to get it running correctly.
>
>4) FYI sake, I have a drum that "sorts" the bulk content into 3 sizes, (
>1-leafy, then 2-chips, then 3-too big, in the process of sorting, I find
>that the drum action (on an average summer day of about 70F will remove 20%
>MC from a very wet pile of "muck" the entire process from when the chips are
>feed into the drum, until the chips are ready for going to the silo is less
>than 3 minutes. the only thing using electricity at this point of sorting is
>a 1/4hp 110vac motor (like what would come out of a furnace). There is no
>air movement other than the drum turning, (about 20rpm) I would be happy to
>send you some pictures and a "how I would make it (the drum) next time
>write-up if you are interested.
>
>5) I find that there is NO sense in drying more than you can use in about
>one month, as it simply adds to the reduction process (and cost/or labor) to
>dry them or finding a dry location for them (400 CuYd of chips is quite a
>lot of space) I simply keep low piles (no higher than 5ft) and cheap tarps
>simply to keep the bulk of the rain off.
>
>Oh, I guess the fact that I'm running a "Monorator Style" upper container on
>my gasifier WOULD have an effect of why most of the chips I run are 45%mc
>and I have no problems with it. (our local conditions are that I simply
>uncover a pile, drive the front end loader into it, and start filling the
>sorter, ALL of this being done in MINUS (-2 to -40 f), therefore "drying"
>is imposable, as it is simply too cold in the first place, this is the
>reason for the monorator.
>
>If, and only IF, you are using your unit in the cold, I would suggest NOT
>drying (save the time & effort) and use a monorator upper container on your
>gasifier instead.
>
>If you are also using your unit in the midst of summer, then YES I would
>agree with drying SOMEWHAT....
>
>Read up on a monorator... :)
>
>Greg Manning,
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Wynn
>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Woodchip driers?
>
>
>Dear Kollol,
>Cheap, as in [my current thinking] hardware cloth and 2x4s. Cheap, as in
>solar energy heat input, or ambient breezes only. And manual, or simple
>mechanical devices to assist in moving, turning, etc. the chips. Some
>sort of roof to avoid rewetting from rain/snow. Input storage [Pile?]
>thru drying region, to dry storage [silo?] with easy gravity fill of
>gassifier bin.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
> Wynn

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Feb 25 18:50:06 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One candle of
heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040225150117.02072e90@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.175006.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:17:03PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

(snip)
>
> So, if a sufficient number and variety of "starting materials" can be named
> (and have low cost and wide geographic distribution), then all of us could
> have easier ways to start our fires (even Crispin :-)) ).
>

In the North country, birchbark is the best firestarter there is. Peel it off
the tree (or light it right on the tree if you need quick heat to stop
hypothermia) and even big pieces take no more than one match to light. I don't
know if there are other trees with the same type of bark, but ....
Where I was raised in the southern US, there is a type of pine which leaves a
core of "fatwood" in the stump. This core is full of resin which ignites with
little effort and is used for kindling and torches. I think it's the same tree
which is tapped for turpentine, and I recall as a child not having to look very
hard for the stumps anywhere we camped. The outer part of the stump was always
rotten and easily kicked apart leaving the resinous core.
Bayberry (Myrica cerifera) is the shrub I mentioned before that has berries
which are boiled to extract the wax which is excellent candle wax, about 4lb of
berries yeilds about a pound of wax.
Wax made from soybeans is fairly widely available now, as well as waxes from
other vegetable sources, palm oil, "chinese vegetable tallow", etc., for
candles, and could be used as firestarters.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From Visser at BTGWORLD.COM Thu Feb 26 03:23:46 2004
From: Visser at BTGWORLD.COM (Piet Visser)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Gelfuel
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.092346.0100.VISSER@BTGWORLD.COM>

Dear stovers,

Who can tip me where I can find more information about the gelling agent in
gelfuel.
As far as I know cellulose is used in the gelfuel of GreenHeat from
Zimbabwe, forming a gel with the 20% water and thus including the ethanol.
But litterature tells me that cellulose is not soluble in water. Maybe
methyl-cellulose is used?
Also cellulose is expensive, so what other cheap agent would do the same
trick. I have experimentend with different varieties of starch, but without
acceptable results.

Thanks for any suggestions,
Best regards,

Piet Visser
_____________________________________________________________

Piet Visser
BTG biomass technology group B.V.
c/o University of Twente
Postal address : P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
Physical address : Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands

Phone : +31 53 489 2897
Direct : +31 53 489 2889
Fax : +31 53 489 3116
E-mail : Office@btgworld.com
Direct : visser@btgworld.com

==> Visit our website at <http://www.btgworld.com> <==
==> Visit our website at <http://www.ecogas.nl> <==
==> Visit the stove website at <http://www.cookstove.net> <==
_____________________________________________________________

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Feb 26 08:56:06 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.065606.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Harmon and All:

Mother Nature (why not Father?) divides triglycerides into oils for the
vegetable kingdom and fats for the animal kingdom.

FATS have saturated fatty acids, generally C18 hydrocarbon straight chains
ending in acid group attached to the three OH groups of glycerine. They are
generally solid at room temperature.

OILS have same structure, except that there are 1, 2 or 3 double bonds
(unsaturation) on some or all of the acids. This makes them liquid at room
temperature.

I believe they are divided this way because animals are wrm blooded, so fats
remain liquid as long as we are alive. Is rigor mortis the congealing of
the fats at death?

Vegetables are "cold blooded", and so their oils must have a lower
solidification temperature.

Some Exceptions: The whale's flotation oil is unsaturated, hence was used
for lighting before 1857 when oil was discovered and distilled for kerosene.
And the beaver's tail.

While candles are a relatively new invention, "oil for the lamps of China"
etc. go WAY back...

Onward, TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> > Dear Nandu
> >
> > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
> > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> > thing.
> >
> > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too hot
> > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
>
> Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
animals,
> etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more likely.
Also
> there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
> candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by early
white
> settlers and probably indigs as well.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Feb 25 20:12:36 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Blowpipe to increase energy
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.064236.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ken,
We stovers had been trying very hard to develop means for providing
secondary air to the stove. May stovers achieved this by increasing the
length of the stove to provide good natural draft and by punching holes into
the side of the long pipe. When the stove was ignited, the flue gases
escaped with high velocity through the long pipe but sucked in additional
air through the side holes by ventury effect. They do burn without smoke,
but they are too tall for the Indian housewife, who sits down on the floor
for the cooking. Tom Reed solved the problem of secondary air by using a
battery operated blower, but we all felt that the cost of the batteries
would be too high for the third world household. There were suggestions of
thermovoltaic electricity generation, mini-steam turbine, or a spring loaded
device, to drive the blower, but they were all considered impracticable.
Your idea of using water is worth giving a try, especially because the water
can be recycled. Thanks for providing a new idea.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve
President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Boak <kenboak@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

> Tom & Stovers,
>
> As a teenager, I used to make small pipettes from glass capillary tube and
> turn a candle flame into a "blowpipe burner".
>
> Just by blowing through a small jet into the candle flame you can form a
> powerful precision blowtorch - with a flame of 2" , and several hundred
> watts of heat - ideal for silver soldering and the like.
>
> The effort required in blowing to maintain such a flame soon becomes
> tiring - so I used to rig up a large container (1 gallon bottle) with an
> airtight lid, and trickle water into it from a tap through another pipe.
> The rising water displaces the air and you get a constant airflow. You
have
> to remember to turn off the tap otherwise you will spray water over the
> candle and the workpiece.
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> Ken

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Feb 26 11:23:02 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.102302.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Tom, Harmon and all;

At this point you should take a breather -- and visit this Url:

http://www.jatropha.org/use-of-oil.htm

Browse around to.

Again -- a development from Belize. A Mayan oil tree.

No sense in reinventing this wheel -- eh??

Ideal solution for people living in the tropics.

Note the lamps and stoves --

Excerpt:

Jatropha Oil in Comparison with Diesel Fuel

Parameter Diesel Jatropha Oil
Energy content (MJ/kg 42.6 - 45.0 39.6 - 41.8
Spec. weight (15/40 ?C) 0.84 - 0.85 0.91 - 0.92
Solidifying point (?C) -14.0 2.0
Flash point (?C) 80 110 - 240
Cetane value 47.8 51.0
Sulphur (%) 1.0 - 1.2 0.13

Peter / Belize

At 06:56 AM 2/26/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Harmon and All:
>
>Mother Nature (why not Father?) divides triglycerides into oils for the
>vegetable kingdom and fats for the animal kingdom.
>
>FATS have saturated fatty acids, generally C18 hydrocarbon straight chains
>ending in acid group attached to the three OH groups of glycerine. They are
>generally solid at room temperature.
>
>OILS have same structure, except that there are 1, 2 or 3 double bonds
>(unsaturation) on some or all of the acids. This makes them liquid at room
>temperature.
>
>I believe they are divided this way because animals are wrm blooded, so fats
>remain liquid as long as we are alive. Is rigor mortis the congealing of
>the fats at death?
>
>Vegetables are "cold blooded", and so their oils must have a lower
>solidification temperature.
>
>Some Exceptions: The whale's flotation oil is unsaturated, hence was used
>for lighting before 1857 when oil was discovered and distilled for kerosene.
>And the beaver's tail.
>
>While candles are a relatively new invention, "oil for the lamps of China"
>etc. go WAY back...
>
>Onward, TOM REED BEF
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:38 AM
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> > Dear Nandu
>> >
>> > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
>> > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
>> > thing.
>> >
>> > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
>> > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too hot
>> > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
>>
>> Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
>animals,
>> etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more likely.
>Also
>> there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
>> candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by early
>white
>> settlers and probably indigs as well.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harmon Seaver
>> CyberShamanix
>> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Thu Feb 26 11:57:26 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <20040225142306.GA13583@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.165726.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Dear all,
I enjoy the enlightening exchanges but can rarely contribute. I cannot
comment as to whether the vapours given off differ for beeswax or
paraffin wax

However, as a commercial beekeeper who has produced much beeswax let me
say that Beeswax is generally far too expensive to be burnt as candles.
There are other competing demands, not only recycling in the apiary,
which keeps the price up. Few 'beeswax' candles actually contain much
beeswax most are admixtures or paraffin wax with a final dip of beeswax
on the top.

The 'purity' of beeswax is special to the Roman Catholics for the
simple reason of association with Mary, in that the wax is produced by
the virgin worker bees. Even church candles generally contain only small
amounts of beeswax.

Much beeswax is imported from Africa ( generally dirty but
uncontaminated) Other supplies come in from mainland China though
reputedly with much adulteration and chemical and antibiotic
contamination. The ban on Chinese honey ( mainly for antibiotic residues
) means that some of these hive products are being laundered through
other s.e.asian contries.

The point is-- how do you know it is beeswax that you are burning when
you try to compare with the paraffin candles.

As a commodity, particularly in the third world, better sell beeswax and
buy in something cheaper if candles are really needed

Sincerely
ken

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: 25 February 2004 14:23
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:42:27PM +0530, Dutta wrote:
> Stovers,
> I have been following this interesting exchange of notes on 1 candle
of
> heat, which will also provide light. The idea of making a cup of tea
by
> candle light and on candle light ( flame I guess) sounds academically
> speaking quite feasible as calculated by Andrew Heggie.
>
> But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax
and a
> wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens
the
> wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated
wicks can
> release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.

I recently heard someone on the radio warning about burning candles
in the
home, that paraffin candles put out quite a bit of pollutants whereas
beeswax
candles didn't. I can't recall the exact figures.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Thu Feb 26 12:00:40 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
In-Reply-To: <20040225183829.GA13872@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.170040.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Carnuba is one of the plant waxes collected from leaf surfaces and used
in the furniture trade. It is quite a hard wax
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: 25 February 2004 18:38
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
wrote:
> Dear Nandu
>
> I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
> candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> thing.
>
> To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too
hot
> for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!

Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
animals,
etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more
likely. Also
there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by
early white
settlers and probably indigs as well.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Fri Feb 27 00:24:26 2004
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Candle and the Indian civilization
In-Reply-To: <000101c3fc8a$112f8840$6602a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.022426.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Perhaps isn't CARNAUBA? A palm tree from northern Brazil......

At 05:00 p.m. 26/02/04 +0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
>Carnuba is one of the plant waxes collected from leaf surfaces and used
>in the furniture trade. It is quite a hard wax
>Ken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
>Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
>Sent: 25 February 2004 18:38
>To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
>
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>wrote:
> > Dear Nandu
> >
> > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
> > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> > thing.
> >
> > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too
>hot
> > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
>
> Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
>animals,
>etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more
>likely. Also
>there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
>candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by
>early white
>settlers and probably indigs as well.
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Feb 26 13:12:06 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <000001c3fc89$a25897e0$6602a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.121206.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 04:57:26PM -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> Dear all,
> I enjoy the enlightening exchanges but can rarely contribute. I cannot
> comment as to whether the vapours given off differ for beeswax or
> paraffin wax
>
> However, as a commercial beekeeper who has produced much beeswax let me
> say that Beeswax is generally far too expensive to be burnt as candles.
> There are other competing demands, not only recycling in the apiary,
> which keeps the price up. Few 'beeswax' candles actually contain much
> beeswax most are admixtures or paraffin wax with a final dip of beeswax
> on the top.

If you go to any place selling candle making supplies, they all offer 100%
beeswax in various forms such as sheets, blocks, etc. From about $7.50 @ lb on
up. I'm also seeing a great many places selling 100% beeswax candles, and also
various grades of mixed waxes.
Not that I'm saying the price doesn't prohibit these candles being used in
the 3rd world, of course, but people in the US or Euro should have no problem
finding 100% beeswax candles to burn.

(snip)

> The point is-- how do you know it is beeswax that you are burning when
> you try to compare with the paraffin candles.
>

Simply because of the laws against false advertising. Of course there are
probably plenty of candles in the discount stores that say "beeswax" and then if
you read the fine print they're only a blend, but those who make their own
candles can readily tell the difference between pure beeswax and paraffin.

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Feb 26 20:17:02 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Plant oil stoves -- lights -- and electrical power
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.191702.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Some might find this interesting:

Plant oil Stoves:

http://www.jatropha.org/cooker/index.html

Making electric power:

http://www.jatropha.org/india/jcl-engines.htm

They use the old style Lister diesel engine -- I have three -- wonderful
power plants!!

Plant oil lamps:

http://www.jatropha.org/india/jcl-lamps.htm

Peter / Belize

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Fri Feb 27 01:24:41 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Forwarding Eugene Schultz on seed oil products
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.232441.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

1. Tonight, Peter Singfeld gave us several valuable leads for plant oil
(apparently mostly jatropha-related). Thanks to Peter for sharing some fine
looking products.

2. Just a bit earlier I received this message that I am sure was intended
for posting to all:

" Ron: I just noticed that the subject of non-edible seedoil fuels has
come up
again! Our research group published a book chapter on this some years ago:

Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12. Oilseeds as
Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B. Shultz, Jr.
and
Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds: Technology and
Policy
Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.

Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find. Anyone
interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with a
postal
address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene Shultz,
Washington University in St. Louis, USA."

(Gene's e-mail is GeneShu@aol.com)

3. Perhaps 5 years ago, because of the prior discussion that Gene refers
to, I saw this book and chapter and can strongly recommend it for anyone
interested. Gene is one of the acknowledged world experts on this topic.
(Not quite germane here, we also talked about some root crops that looked
promising as a cooking fuel.)

4. I wonder if Peter, or Gene, or anyone else interested in seed oils can
report in on the emissions aspects of seed oil fuels (thinking not of lead
from wicks but rather CO, particulates, etc.) At the time of our earlier
discussions, I believe we were not discussing or knowing as much about
emissions as much as we do now. Anyone? Are seed oils as good in this
regard as is bio-methane? As ethanol or methanol?

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: Plant oil stoves -- lights -- and electrical power

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
> Subject: Plant oil stoves -- lights -- and electrical power
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> Some might find this interesting:
>
> Plant oil Stoves:
>
> http://www.jatropha.org/cooker/index.html
>
>
> Making electric power:
>
> http://www.jatropha.org/india/jcl-engines.htm
>
> They use the old style Lister diesel engine -- I have three -- wonderful
> power plants!!
>
> Plant oil lamps:
>
> http://www.jatropha.org/india/jcl-lamps.htm
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>

From hotspringfreak at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Feb 27 05:04:22 2004
From: hotspringfreak at HOTMAIL.COM (Chris Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Gelfuel
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.050422.0500.HOTSPRINGFREAK@HOTMAIL.COM>

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:23:46 +0100, Piet Visser <Visser@BTGWORLD.COM>
wrote:

>Dear stovers,
>
>Who can tip me where I can find more information about the gelling agent
in
>gelfuel.
>As far as I know cellulose is used in the gelfuel of GreenHeat from
>Zimbabwe, forming a gel with the 20% water and thus including the ethanol.
>But litterature tells me that cellulose is not soluble in water. Maybe
>methyl-cellulose is used?
>Also cellulose is expensive, so what other cheap agent would do the same
>trick. I have experimentend with different varieties of starch, but
without
>acceptable results.
>
>Thanks for any suggestions,
>Best regards,
>
>Piet Visser
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>Piet Visser
>BTG biomass technology group B.V.
>c/o University of Twente
>Postal address : P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
>Physical address : Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands
>
>Phone : +31 53 489 2897
>Direct : +31 53 489 2889
>Fax : +31 53 489 3116
>E-mail : Office@btgworld.com
>Direct : visser@btgworld.com
>
>==> Visit our website at <http://www.btgworld.com> <==
>==> Visit our website at <http://www.ecogas.nl> <==
>==> Visit the stove website at <http://www.cookstove.net> <==
>_____________________________________________________________

Piet,

From hotspringfreak at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Feb 27 06:35:02 2004
From: hotspringfreak at HOTMAIL.COM (Chris Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Gelfuel
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.063502.0500.HOTSPRINGFREAK@HOTMAIL.COM>

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:23:46 +0100, Piet Visser <Visser@BTGWORLD.COM>
wrote:

- 2nd attempt to send this due to a clunky web interface for reply -

Piet,

For an experimenter, this method using calcium acetate could
suffice. I have not been able to source calcium acetate and have
not verified this formula, which adds water to make a quick gelling
alcohol. I am slightly skeptical, due to the "watering" of a
volatile fire starter, before ignition. Perhaps the water is "bound".
I would like to be pleasantly surprised - alcohol gel - a favorite
method for lighting my WoodGas CampStove - instant gasification
without soot or smoke.

I also regularly use splinters of loblolly pine ("fatwood" - sold in
stores where I live) which is fantastic, but burning with a black
smoke in any size above a splinter (even with a fan), high flames and
intense heat, it's best split to splinter size or used as shavings
when used on a small IDD stove. Such a small quantity makes it very
cheap and is doubly useful to me as never-fail tinder in wet weather.

-----

From K.Prasad at TUE.NL Fri Feb 27 07:34:58 2004
From: K.Prasad at TUE.NL (Prasad, K.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Blowpipe to increase energy
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.133458.0100.K.PRASAD@TUE.NL>

Dear Dr.Karve and others

I'm in wholehearted agreement with the opinion of Dr.Karve on the various
methods suggested for providing secondary air. Stated plainly secondary air
can be provided, in the situation that Karve finds himself in, only with the
assistance of a chimney. But chimney requires careful attention. But the
problems faciong the lady who collects fuel do not provide her with the
wherewithalls to handle the chimney problems.

There seems to be no quick-fix solutions to the overall problem that all of
us are intending to provide. What is required is a patient approach. Alas!
most of us are looking for solutions that can be implemented today, not
day-after tomorrow!!

Yours
Prasad

-----Original Message-----
From: adkarve [mailto:adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:13 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Blowpipe to increase energy

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu Feb 26 20:15:48 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Jatropha oil
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.064548.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

The potential of Jatropha oil as a diesel substitute has already been
recognised by Indian scientists, and several landowners in India have even
started plantations of this tree. It is however still a very low yielding
wild plant, yielding on an average about 200 to 500 kg seed per acre. In
fact, this is true of most of the oil-bearing tree species in India. Most of
them do not yield more than about 100 to 250 kg of oil per acre. The species
of oil-bearing plants that are raised as field crops have been subjected to
intense plant breeding input, and therefore yield at least four times as
much oil. I agree that Jatropha is a plant that can survive under adverse
conditions, but under poor agronomic conditions, the yield would be even
lower. And there are many other species, that would give more money per unit
area than Jatropha, even on waste land. My advice to farmers is to wait for
a high yielding genotype of Jatropha and then go for it.
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization

> Dear Tom, Harmon and all;
>
> At this point you should take a breather -- and visit this Url:
>
> http://www.jatropha.org/use-of-oil.htm
>
> Browse around to.
>
> Again -- a development from Belize. A Mayan oil tree.
>
> No sense in reinventing this wheel -- eh??
>
> Ideal solution for people living in the tropics.
>
> Note the lamps and stoves --
>
> Excerpt:
>
>
> Jatropha Oil in Comparison with Diesel Fuel
>
> Parameter Diesel Jatropha Oil
> Energy content (MJ/kg 42.6 - 45.0 39.6 - 41.8
> Spec. weight (15/40 ?C) 0.84 - 0.85 0.91 - 0.92
> Solidifying point (?C) -14.0 2.0
> Flash point (?C) 80 110 - 240
> Cetane value 47.8 51.0
> Sulphur (%) 1.0 - 1.2 0.13
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> At 06:56 AM 2/26/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
> >Dear Harmon and All:
> >
> >Mother Nature (why not Father?) divides triglycerides into oils for the
> >vegetable kingdom and fats for the animal kingdom.
> >
> >FATS have saturated fatty acids, generally C18 hydrocarbon straight
chains
> >ending in acid group attached to the three OH groups of glycerine. They
are
> >generally solid at room temperature.
> >
> >OILS have same structure, except that there are 1, 2 or 3 double bonds
> >(unsaturation) on some or all of the acids. This makes them liquid at
room
> >temperature.
> >
> >I believe they are divided this way because animals are wrm blooded, so
fats
> >remain liquid as long as we are alive. Is rigor mortis the congealing of
> >the fats at death?
> >
> >Vegetables are "cold blooded", and so their oils must have a lower
> >solidification temperature.
> >
> >Some Exceptions: The whale's flotation oil is unsaturated, hence was
used
> >for lighting before 1857 when oil was discovered and distilled for
kerosene.
> >And the beaver's tail.
> >
> >While candles are a relatively new invention, "oil for the lamps of
China"
> >etc. go WAY back...
> >
> >Onward, TOM REED BEF
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> >To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:38 AM
> >Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
wrote:
> >> > Dear Nandu
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for
tallow
> >> > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> >> > thing.
> >> >
> >> > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> >> > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too
hot
> >> > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
> >>
> >> Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
> >animals,
> >> etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more
likely.
> >Also
> >> there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for
making
> >> candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by
early
> >white
> >> settlers and probably indigs as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Harmon Seaver
> >> CyberShamanix
> >> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu Feb 26 20:26:15 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Hard waxes from plants
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.065615.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

In the case of any plant or animal product, the cost is relatively high
because it has to be collected, generally by using human labour, and then
extracted and purified. Two sources of cheap hard wax of plant origin are
the sugarcane wax and the rice bran wax. Both sugarcane and rice are
commercial commodities. They are brought to a central point of collection
and they are processed for a product other than the waxes. The waxes are
therefore available as a cheap byproduct of the main industrial activity.
The Carnauba plant is incidentally of chinese origin.
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda <rmiranda@INET.COM.BR>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization

> Perhaps isn't CARNAUBA? A palm tree from northern Brazil......
>
>
> At 05:00 p.m. 26/02/04 +0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> >Carnuba is one of the plant waxes collected from leaf surfaces and used
> >in the furniture trade. It is quite a hard wax
> >Ken
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
> >Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> >Sent: 25 February 2004 18:38
> >To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> >wrote:
> > > Dear Nandu
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for tallow
> > > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> > > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too
> >hot
> > > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
> >
> > Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
> >animals,
> >etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more
> >likely. Also
> >there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for making
> >candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by
> >early white
> >settlers and probably indigs as well.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Feb 27 10:15:40 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Jatropha oil
In-Reply-To: <000001c3fd41$8a2fdd00$265441db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.091540.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

There's a rather good list of oil bearing plants at

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

It gives the yield of jatropha as 1590kg/ha or 202gal/acre, which is better
than rapeseed at 1000kg/ha or 127gal/acre but not nearly as good as some other
tree crops like macadamia nut, brazil nut, avocado, coconut, or oil palm. The
latter is rated at 5000kg/ha or 635gal/acre.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 06:45:48AM +0530, adkarve wrote:
> The potential of Jatropha oil as a diesel substitute has already been
> recognised by Indian scientists, and several landowners in India have even
> started plantations of this tree. It is however still a very low yielding
> wild plant, yielding on an average about 200 to 500 kg seed per acre. In
> fact, this is true of most of the oil-bearing tree species in India. Most of
> them do not yield more than about 100 to 250 kg of oil per acre. The species
> of oil-bearing plants that are raised as field crops have been subjected to
> intense plant breeding input, and therefore yield at least four times as
> much oil. I agree that Jatropha is a plant that can survive under adverse
> conditions, but under poor agronomic conditions, the yield would be even
> lower. And there are many other species, that would give more money per unit
> area than Jatropha, even on waste land. My advice to farmers is to wait for
> a high yielding genotype of Jatropha and then go for it.
> Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> Pune, India
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
>
>
> > Dear Tom, Harmon and all;
> >
> > At this point you should take a breather -- and visit this Url:
> >
> > http://www.jatropha.org/use-of-oil.htm
> >
> > Browse around to.
> >
> > Again -- a development from Belize. A Mayan oil tree.
> >
> > No sense in reinventing this wheel -- eh??
> >
> > Ideal solution for people living in the tropics.
> >
> > Note the lamps and stoves --
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> >
> > Jatropha Oil in Comparison with Diesel Fuel
> >
> > Parameter Diesel Jatropha Oil
> > Energy content (MJ/kg 42.6 - 45.0 39.6 - 41.8
> > Spec. weight (15/40 ?C) 0.84 - 0.85 0.91 - 0.92
> > Solidifying point (?C) -14.0 2.0
> > Flash point (?C) 80 110 - 240
> > Cetane value 47.8 51.0
> > Sulphur (%) 1.0 - 1.2 0.13
> >
> >
> > Peter / Belize
> >
> > At 06:56 AM 2/26/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
> > >Dear Harmon and All:
> > >
> > >Mother Nature (why not Father?) divides triglycerides into oils for the
> > >vegetable kingdom and fats for the animal kingdom.
> > >
> > >FATS have saturated fatty acids, generally C18 hydrocarbon straight
> chains
> > >ending in acid group attached to the three OH groups of glycerine. They
> are
> > >generally solid at room temperature.
> > >
> > >OILS have same structure, except that there are 1, 2 or 3 double bonds
> > >(unsaturation) on some or all of the acids. This makes them liquid at
> room
> > >temperature.
> > >
> > >I believe they are divided this way because animals are wrm blooded, so
> fats
> > >remain liquid as long as we are alive. Is rigor mortis the congealing of
> > >the fats at death?
> > >
> > >Vegetables are "cold blooded", and so their oils must have a lower
> > >solidification temperature.
> > >
> > >Some Exceptions: The whale's flotation oil is unsaturated, hence was
> used
> > >for lighting before 1857 when oil was discovered and distilled for
> kerosene.
> > >And the beaver's tail.
> > >
> > >While candles are a relatively new invention, "oil for the lamps of
> China"
> > >etc. go WAY back...
> > >
> > >Onward, TOM REED BEF
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> > >To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:38 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE :Candle and the Indian civilization
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> wrote:
> > >> > Dear Nandu
> > >> >
> > >> > I was wondering if the cold weather in Europe, which allows for
> tallow
> > >> > candles to be made and used, is the reason for it being a 'western'
> > >> > thing.
> > >> >
> > >> > To make a tallow candle you have to have fat (which means plenty of
> > >> > animals) and not too high a room temperature. Perhaps India was too
> hot
> > >> > for tallow candles and on hot days they became oil anyway!
> > >>
> > >> Not too likely that a culture which has so many vegetarians, sacred
> > >animals,
> > >> etc would use tallow for candles anyway, eh? Beeswax is a lot more
> likely.
> > >Also
> > >> there are plants, at least here in NA, which produce wax used for
> making
> > >> candles. Can't recall the name of that right off, but it was used by
> early
> > >white
> > >> settlers and probably indigs as well.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Harmon Seaver
> > >> CyberShamanix
> > >> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > >

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Thu Feb 26 13:14:05 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <000001c3f989$145bc460$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <THU.26.FEB.2004.141405.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

in a previous message, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on 2/22/04 17:15 at
crispin@newdawn.sz wrote:

> www.solco.co.za
I could not access this link. Is there another way of writing it?
--
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that
is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 591 715 16356 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.thehungersite.com

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Fri Feb 27 15:18:47 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.131847.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene Shultz
that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially for
lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found worked
very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was evident).
These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also through a
local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than wood.

2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires joining
the list by going to:
http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see also
how to post after joining.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"

> Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass this
> along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not to
bother you.
>
> Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be relatively
> smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free carbon. Our
1984
> chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels for
> Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my grad
student,
> Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as part of
her 1982
> M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
characteristics" (page
> 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located either.
> However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
library.
>
> On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded kerosene
> lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if ample
oxygen is
> available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
therefore,
> candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
improvements:
> use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
incorporate
> this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp known as
the
> Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10 candlepower."
>
> On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use several
> flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25 times as
much,
> three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good flow up
the
> wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the oil
is
> highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization are
> potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization of
oil in the
> wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
>
> According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page 230),
> seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
Kerosene's value
> is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from illuminating
> fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
oxygen" (p.
> 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
practical,
> simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old lit,
and
> our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
interested
> in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
>
> Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for woody
> roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots, with
low
> content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
woodfuel.
> Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical roots we
studied
> for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such as
> buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
sun-dry
> such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of moisture
> content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very little
smoke, almost
> smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be stacked
in
> such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you get
> smoldering and lots of smoke production).
>
> Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water, and
> also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico, Brazil,
> Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous (causes
root rot),
> hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how much
> water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
means
> faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
into root
> rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out to
dry
> in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who need
jobs.
> If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the literature.
Mostly
> in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
>
> And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
>
> Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12. Oilseeds as
> Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B. Shultz, Jr.
and
> Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds: Technology and
Policy
> Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
>
> Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
Anyone
> interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with a
postal
> address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene Shultz,
> Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri Feb 27 17:59:24 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution - Solco - Solar Cooker Promoting
organization
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.005924.0200.>

in a previous message, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on 2/22/04 17:15 at
crispin@newdawn.sz wrote:

> www.solco.co.za
I could not access this link. Is there another way of writing it?

Ihave the correct site as

http://www.solarcookers.co.za/

This is the Solco website.

Best wishes
Crispin

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri Feb 27 18:32:41 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One candle of
heat
In-Reply-To: <20040225235006.GA14078@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.173241.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Harmon,

Where is Bayberry grown (specific locations and general environments).

And can average people make the "wax" from soybeans and the other seeds you
mentioned? If so, where are the procedures explained?

Paul

At 05:50 PM 2/25/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:17:03PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >
> > So, if a sufficient number and variety of "starting materials" can be named
> > (and have low cost and wide geographic distribution), then all of us could
> > have easier ways to start our fires (even Crispin :-)) ).
> >
>
> In the North country, birchbark is the best firestarter there is. Peel
> it off
>the tree (or light it right on the tree if you need quick heat to stop
>hypothermia) and even big pieces take no more than one match to light. I don't
>know if there are other trees with the same type of bark, but ....
> Where I was raised in the southern US, there is a type of pine which
> leaves a
>core of "fatwood" in the stump. This core is full of resin which ignites with
>little effort and is used for kindling and torches. I think it's the same tree
>which is tapped for turpentine, and I recall as a child not having to look
>very
>hard for the stumps anywhere we camped. The outer part of the stump was always
>rotten and easily kicked apart leaving the resinous core.
> Bayberry (Myrica cerifera) is the shrub I mentioned before that has
> berries
>which are boiled to extract the wax which is excellent candle wax, about
>4lb of
>berries yeilds about a pound of wax.
> Wax made from soybeans is fairly widely available now, as well as
> waxes from
>other vegetable sources, palm oil, "chinese vegetable tallow", etc., for
>candles, and could be used as firestarters.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri Feb 27 20:25:09 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: Beekeeper wants smoke?? was Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <000001c3fc89$a25897e0$6602a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.192509.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ken,

As a beekeeper, what are your stoves interests? heat? Or is it the
smoke? If smoke, have you ever tried an "pyrolysis" unit which is
essentially the bottom half of an IDD (or TLUD) unit like my Juntos
stove? Tons of smoke!!!!!! Maybe the beekeepers' smoker device is
actually like what is used in the TLUD (Top-Lit Up-Draft) gasifiers.

Anyway, we are all glad that you are on the Stoves list. And thanks for
your clear comments about beeswax.

Paul

At 04:57 PM 2/26/04 +0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
>Dear all,
>I enjoy the enlightening exchanges but can rarely contribute. I cannot
>comment as to whether the vapours given off differ for beeswax or
>paraffin wax
>
>However, as a commercial beekeeper who has produced much beeswax let me
>say that Beeswax is generally far too expensive to be burnt as candles.
>There are other competing demands, not only recycling in the apiary,
>which keeps the price up. Few 'beeswax' candles actually contain much
>beeswax most are admixtures or paraffin wax with a final dip of beeswax
>on the top.
>
>The 'purity' of beeswax is special to the Roman Catholics for the
>simple reason of association with Mary, in that the wax is produced by
>the virgin worker bees. Even church candles generally contain only small
>amounts of beeswax.
>
>Much beeswax is imported from Africa ( generally dirty but
>uncontaminated) Other supplies come in from mainland China though
>reputedly with much adulteration and chemical and antibiotic
>contamination. The ban on Chinese honey ( mainly for antibiotic residues
>) means that some of these hive products are being laundered through
>other s.e.asian contries.
>
>The point is-- how do you know it is beeswax that you are burning when
>you try to compare with the paraffin candles.
>
>As a commodity, particularly in the third world, better sell beeswax and
>buy in something cheaper if candles are really needed
>
>Sincerely
>ken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
>Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
>Sent: 25 February 2004 14:23
>To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat
>
>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:42:27PM +0530, Dutta wrote:
> > Stovers,
> > I have been following this interesting exchange of notes on 1 candle
>of
> > heat, which will also provide light. The idea of making a cup of tea
>by
> > candle light and on candle light ( flame I guess) sounds academically
> > speaking quite feasible as calculated by Andrew Heggie.
> >
> > But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax
>and a
> > wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens
>the
> > wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated
>wicks can
> > release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.
>
> I recently heard someone on the radio warning about burning candles
>in the
>home, that paraffin candles put out quite a bit of pollutants whereas
>beeswax
>candles didn't. I can't recall the exact figures.
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri Feb 27 21:18:30 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Rootfuel was: Re: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
In-Reply-To: <04d901c3fd70$db850c00$566d0443@net>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.FEB.2004.201830.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Dear Gene, and others,

I, for one, am interested in rootfuels. Reasons include: sandy soils,
roots of plants with other uses such as gourds/squash, and the ability to
make "smoke" which is what is actually burned in the small gasifiers.

If the roots are not "rock-hard" when they come out of the ground, they
could probably be easily cut into "chunky" pieces that (after drying) allow
the air to pass through them in the gasifiers.

Gene, please tell all of the Stovers about your background. University
professor of what?

And have you continued with "rootfuel" work, and can tell us the "state of
the art"??

(your full message is below so that it is in the archives with this new
"thread" on rootfuels.

Paul

At 01:18 PM 2/27/04 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:
>Stovers:
>
> 1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene Shultz
>that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially for
>lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found worked
>very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was evident).
> These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also through a
>local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than wood.
>
>2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires joining
>the list by going to:
>http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see also
>how to post after joining.
>
>Ron
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
>To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
>Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
>Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
>
>
> > Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass this
> > along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not to
>bother you.
> >
> > Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be relatively
> > smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free carbon. Our
>1984
> > chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels for
> > Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my grad
>student,
> > Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as part of
>her 1982
> > M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> > constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
>characteristics" (page
> > 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located either.
> > However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
>library.
> >
> > On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded kerosene
> > lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if ample
>oxygen is
> > available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
>therefore,
> > candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
>improvements:
> > use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
>incorporate
> > this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp known as
>the
> > Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10 candlepower."
> >
> > On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use several
> > flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25 times as
>much,
> > three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good flow up
>the
> > wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the oil
>is
> > highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization are
> > potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization of
>oil in the
> > wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
> >
> > According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page 230),
> > seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
>Kerosene's value
> > is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from illuminating
> > fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
>oxygen" (p.
> > 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
>practical,
> > simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old lit,
>and
> > our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
>interested
> > in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> >
> > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for woody
> > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots, with
>low
> > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
>woodfuel.
> > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical roots we
>studied
> > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such as
> > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
>sun-dry
> > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of moisture
> > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very little
>smoke, almost
> > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be stacked
>in
> > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you get
> > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> >
> > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water, and
> > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico, Brazil,
> > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous (causes
>root rot),
> > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how much
> > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
>means
> > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
>into root
> > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out to
>dry
> > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who need
>jobs.
> > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the literature.
>Mostly
> > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
> >
> > And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
> >
> > Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12. Oilseeds as
> > Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B. Shultz, Jr.
>and
> > Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds: Technology and
>Policy
> > Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
> >
> > Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
>Anyone
> > interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with a
>postal
> > address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene Shultz,
> > Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
> >

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Feb 28 16:42:02 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Jatropha oil
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.154202.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

The Maya used Jatropha plants as living fences -- never as a crop. The
plant has certain repellent properties that impedes the progress of
insects. The oil was simply the by product of this fence.

I have literature demonstrating yields of 6000 plus liters per acre for
Palm plantations in Honduras -- also part of this area -- Central America.

We have a wild palm here in Belize -- Orbignya cohune-- which is extremely
common.

(Also identified at times as: Attalea cohune )

I presently produce medicinal grade cohune nut oil (export markets) It
requires an extremely labor intensive process. Hand breaking and inspecting
each nut to make sure none is rancid or spoiled.

100 lbs of complete nut yield about 12% nut meat -- the rest nut shell. The
nut meat yields 60% oil in practice. The shell is extremely hard -- burns
like coal. I use it as fuel for my furnaces here. You simply shovel it in
-- just like you would coal.

This shell once was claimed as making the very best quality activated
charcoal -- and the British maintained facilities -- starting during WWI --
to make cohune shell activated charcoal for gas masks.

Average yields in the wild -- quoting:

YIELD AND DESCRIPTION

Individual palms produce about 1000-2000 fruits per annum in large bunches
yielding l,500 kg/ha.

Most palms grow wild at a density of 15 palms per ha.

(I am working cohune "ridges" at present that are far more densely
populated than this -- probably 300 or more cohune palms per ha)

The individual fruits are egg shaped, about 5-8 cm long and up to 5 cm in
diameter. The fruit has an outer husk and a pulpy fibrous mesocarp
surrounding the nut. Inside the very hard nut shell is a kernel approx. 30
mm long, 18 mm in diameter and weighing 5 g. The kernel contains 65-72% oil
(Godin). The outer pulpy portion of the fruit also contains about 13% oil.
This pulp is, however, not considered to be of commercial interest (Private
Communication).

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

It would yield far more if grown in plantations. But no one has ever
attempted such to date.

A plus side to my operation here -- besides oil and fuel -- is excellent
animal feed -- the press cake by-product of expressing.

The cohune palm is resistant to all diseases of palm and coconut. Palm
disease wiped out the industry in Honduras -- and Lethal Yellowing disease
has killed off greater than 90% of all our coconut trees here.

Mr. Karve -- I believe India would find great interest in this palm. Even
one palm can supply food oil -- animal or human protein "feed" -- lighting
oil -- cooking fuel -- for a single family!!

Certainly -- the stove designers on this list will never find the more
perfect biomass fuel than the nut shell of cohune!

Some Urls' for the curious:

General description:

http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/ipgri/fruits_from_americas/frutales/Ficha%20Attale
a%20cohune.htm

and

http://www.floridata.com/ref/A/atta_coh.cfm

Photo of nut cluster:

http://home.maine.rr.com/trudge/bl/p49cohun.html

Cohune and the Maya:

http://www.caske2000.org/ngo/survival/cohunepalm.htm

Here you will read about the food value of the "heart" of the cohune as well.

As a closer -- the list might be interested to know that all machineries I
use for processing here are sourced in India -- shipped to Belize.

Low tech -- labor intensive -- durable and easily maintained.

Designed for people that are not so much "consumers" but living in a
sustainable manner.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 06:45 AM 2/27/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>The potential of Jatropha oil as a diesel substitute has already been
>recognised by Indian scientists, and several landowners in India have even
>started plantations of this tree. It is however still a very low yielding
>wild plant, yielding on an average about 200 to 500 kg seed per acre. In
>fact, this is true of most of the oil-bearing tree species in India. Most of
>them do not yield more than about 100 to 250 kg of oil per acre. The species
>of oil-bearing plants that are raised as field crops have been subjected to
>intense plant breeding input, and therefore yield at least four times as
>much oil. I agree that Jatropha is a plant that can survive under adverse
>conditions, but under poor agronomic conditions, the yield would be even
>lower. And there are many other species, that would give more money per unit
>area than Jatropha, even on waste land. My advice to farmers is to wait for
>a high yielding genotype of Jatropha and then go for it.
>Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>Pune, India

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Feb 28 16:58:18 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.155818.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

While looking through my archives on cohune I came across this paper
written by an old American Engineer that spent many years in this area.

Do not know if this Url is still good --

http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm

But do have the entire paper archived on my hard drive here.

I often suspect that some on this list are a little out of touch with
economic realities in 3rd world environments. Maybe an old time -- style --
american Engineer can help gain perspective??

I have clipped and pasted in just one short section -- as it happens -- in
regards to cohune nut.

High-lighting:

Every single scheme based on imported technology has failed, even those
directly subsidized by the government, often with drastic economic
consequences. In contrast, while imported projects come and go,
household-level production by indigenous people using a variety of simple
local technologies has never stopped.

I can't aggree more with this statement!! And all micro industrial
operations I have here run along the lines suggested below. With the help
of "India" -- which has thousands of years of experience.

I have to go now -- the chickens and turkeys need feeding -- today they get
pressed cake of coconut!

Peter / Belize

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

http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm

(Extract only)

A poignant example can be found in a file I have accumulated, which
documents over twenty five separate feasibility studies, project proposals,
implementation plans, and project assessments over more than a century. All
are devoted to a single project; the commercializing the production of
edible oil from the seeds of a palm tree (Orbignya cohune) which is native
to the Belizean rainforest. Attracted by the high yield of seeds per tree,
and easy access to dense stands, entrepreneurs, companies, governments, and
NGOs have all planned and conducted numerous projects to extract the oil,
using imported cracking and rendering technologies developed in tropical
palm-oil industries in other countries. One company even built a railroad
and a pressing plant employing over 600 people. Every single scheme based
on imported technology has failed, even those directly subsidized by the
government, often with drastic economic consequences. In contrast, while
imported projects come and go, household-level production by indigenous
people using a variety of simple local technologies has never stopped.

If we recognize that sustainable technological solutions must be local,
does this mean that they must be indigenous (in the meaning of locally
generated within an existing cultural/social tradition using local tools
and knowledge)? Some of the earlier writings on "Indigenous Technical
Knowledge" (ITK) suggested that indeed, in the long term, only local
indigenous technologies could be sustainable, practical, maintainable and
equitable.(8) There was a definite utopian vision behind the idea of each
society having its own local science, building a sustainable future on the
foundation of indigenous techniques, which were themselves uniformly
sustainable, productive, and environmentally benign.

While the early promise of the ITK approach has only been partially
realized, experience suggests certain aspects of indigenous technologies
that contribute to their sustainability. These can also be used as
guidelines in generating new technologies. The characteristics of
indigenous technologies which contribute to sustainability are:

-- low capital inputs

-- use of locally available materials, skills, and tools

-- availability of spare parts, fuels, or ingredients in local market channels

-- can be maintained by existing organizations

-- closely adapted to local physical environment

-- driven by demand and perceived needs, not systems models or external
analysis

-- do not challenge or contradict fundamental cultural beliefs

-- fit existing systems of ownership, obligation, and authority

Just as the fall of modernization theory has led to a rethinking of
modernity and the unique power of highly technological science to solve
problems, so it has also led to a dethroning of the "traditional" and
primitive, from its position of primal purity and harmony with nature. This
development has taken many forms within the social sciences, not least of
which is a rethinking of colonial history, and the mythos that all
so-called primitive people live in simple balance with their natural
environment. Throughout the world most "traditional" cultures are now
recognized as the products of long-term, complex, historical encounters
between diverse local groups and colonial powers, who can barely be
considered in any way isolated, uniform, or functionally integrated (this
should not be taken as in any way attacking their rights to
self-determination, or stewardship over their own resources).(9) Without
denigrating the creativity, originality, and appropriateness of local and
indigenous technologies, it is still necessary to openly discuss the
limitations of those technologies, if only to challenge the increasingly
common perspective that only local and indigenous technologies can be
sustainable, appropriate, and suited to indigenous social and economic
environments.(10) In Belize, for example, there are now several
organizations that argue against any sort of foreign agricultural
technological assistance, on the grounds that local farmers know best, and
that foreign research always undercuts local self-reliance (given the poor
record of technology transfer, and the destructive nature of so much
imported technology, these sentiments are quite understandable).

A more balanced perspective requires that we recognize the limitations and
strengths of both indigenous technologies developed in the course of
practice and those produced by trained technological specialists in the
laboratory or in formal experimental field trials. Typically, the
limitations of indigenous technologies (aside from the obvious biases in
knowledge and training) flow from poverty, disruption of traditional
cultural institutions for conservation of traditional knowledge, and the
increasing factionalization and fragmentation of indigenous communities.
Once, tradition may have provided all the answers that were needed, but it
no longer does so. Because of poverty, indigenous peoples often do not have
the time and the resource to engage in experimentation and innovation; when
they do, they often lack the social organizations that can develop,
disseminate, or market their technology. Also because of poverty, they must
often take opportunities for short-term gain, even when they know the
consequence will be destructive or dangerous in the long term.

Clearly, the goal of sustainable technological development must therefore
be to combine the strengths of both "modern" and "traditional"
technologies, to achieve development that is locally adapted, economically
viable, and socially and ecologically sound in the long term, supported by
collaboration between both indigenous and foreign scientist/practitioners.
The last few years have seen a number of new models for this kind of hybrid
technology, examples of which I will discuss later in this paper. But
experience with hybrid approaches to technological development have
demonstrated clearly that the main obstacles to success are not technical,
but social and economic.

The most serious problem has been to find social institutions where hybrid
technologies can be developed and tested, where scientists and indigenous
people can interact productively in ways that develop, articulate, and then
meet common goals in an economically feasible fashion. The issues of power
and control continually arise during such attempted collaborations; some
social scientists have now concluded as a result that if technologies are
to be truly sustainable in local contexts, they must be developed under the
control of local people, and must be firmly embedded in a local social
matrix. This view of sustainability places the social group in which
technology is developed, used, and maintained at the center rather than the
periphery of our attention. If it is to be sustainable in the long term, a
technology must therefore meet both ecological and social objectives.
Before discussing hybrid technology, I will further discuss ecological and
social definitions of sustainability, asking the question, "what is it we
are trying to sustain?"

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Feb 28 17:26:21 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Forwarding more - mostly on rootfuels
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.152621.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers: Again, Gene has asked me to forward a message (#3?). (And I'd be glad to for anyone out there). I take the liberty of throwing in a few comments (and - to Gene - a few questions below).

GS:
I'm having the seedoil chapter photocopied. Should go out in snail mail on
Monday. When you get it, judge if it is worth putting into a pdf file for the
stovers. I wouldn't know how to put it into pdf, though. Definitely not an
internet person. Not really a stover, although I am interested in stoves.

The seedoil chapter (Mathieu and Shultz) was based largely on an M.S. thesis
project that I directed in our engineering school over 20 years ago, a
combination of lit review and analysis, including old lit on "illuminating" oils,
plus some preliminary experiments carried out with Sandy Mathieu and Ed Schmidt.
The grad student, Sandy Mathieu, went on to start up a computer business, and
rootfuel began to absorb my attention. None of my faculty colleagues wanted to
pick up on seedoil fuels. So I'll leave it to you and your peers to judge if
our very preliminary studies of 1982 are in any way relevant to your interests
today.

BTW, the seedoil chapter includes a section on burning ground oilseeds.
Interesting! We called them "fuelcakes." We used an ordinary hand-cranked grinder
on the whole seeds (Chinese tallow tree seeds, sunflower seeds, etc.) then
patted the ground seed mass into hamburger-shaped patties. Ground hulls can be
added to high-oil-content crushed seeds, to slow combustion and cut down on smoke
generation.

We found that about 35 to 45% oil in the fuelcake was optimal. Above 45%
produced too much smoke. Below 35% oil, it was difficult to maintain combustion.
In the range of 35 to 45, nearly smokeless combustion is possible. It's largely
a matter of getting sufficient air to the fire, so it has to do with how the
patties are stacked, and their thickness.

With assistance from my Kenyan grad students, we cooked "irio" on fuelcake
fires (irio is a maize meal staple food), ate the irio, and made calculations.
Example: a family of 6 to 8 members cooking for 3 hours per day would need
about 2 pounds of oilseed fuelcake daily, or 730 pounds annually. About 10 to 16
Chinese tallow trees might supply this need. That's about 0.1 acre of orchard.
We did time trials of picking tallow trees near Houston, TX, where Sandy
Mathieu lived, and estimated that one adult can pick and crush 2 pounds of seeds in
one hour. There are lots of wild Chinese tallow trees near Houston and along
the Gulf coast, so you don't have to send off to China to get seeds. Watch
out! It's a fast-growing semi-tropical and invasive tree. The big seeds are
spread by big birds who love to eat them in the Fall.

(RWL insert question: 1. Gene - Since last looking at your book/chapter (lost somewhere in my very disorganized office - and maybe even given away), we have had a good bit of discussion on this list about "cakes" (we have been using the term "briquettes"). The main lesson I have gained from this briquette discussion has been the importance of using radiative energy cleverly and productively - most often by using "holey" briquettes. (But the Drs Karve are recently using smaller "squares" which have perimeter capture of radiation from a neighbor. I say a bit more below about this same concept when I was pyrolyzing your root fuels almost ten years ago.
My question is whether you ever tested "holey cakes" - or perhaps can recall anything on this topic of optimizing the geometry of the cakes (as you do describe below on getting sticks too close together).

A brief bio. Prof. Emeritus, engineering school, Washington University in St.
Louis, living in Elsah, IL, not far from St. Louis, MO. Ph.D. (chemical
engrg). Worked in industrial R&D on synthetic fuels at the Institute of Gas
Technology, Chicago. Taught small-college organic chemistry many years, then I was a
professor in the technology-policy arm of the W.U. engineering school, called
the Dept. of Technology and Human Affairs (THA), where I taught appropriate
technology and environmental courses, and advised many grad students from the
Third World (so-called). Learned a lot from them. Did a Fulbright in Costa Rica,
one semester, 1987.

In 1980, at W.U., got interested in seeds and roots as alternative fuel
sources, being aware of the shortcomings of woodfuel. Organized a small
interdisciplinary biomass research group at W.U. Studies were funded by the Rockefeller
Foundation, the USDOE (Western Regional Biomass Program), and others. Main
field experience was with rootfuel and also household air pollution (kitchen
smoke) in rural homes in Latin America, and Zimbabwe, and also in the Navajo
Nation. Some South Asia experience.

The THA dept. was eliminated in 1992, so I took early retirement. Since, I've
been teaching off and on in the Graduate Program in International Affairs,
Washington University in St. Louis, global environment, and int'l development at
first, and more lately teaching in foreign policy. That's right. Foreign
policy. But I earned an M.A. in international affairs. Through with field work
now. That's not for professors emeriti. Looking for successors in rootfuel.

(RWL insert comment: 2. Gene - You have been away too long from comments to this list. We look forward to more on any of the topics above.)

A bit more info on rootfuel made from roots of the buffalo gourd: The roots
aren't "rock-hard" before they are dried. Upon harvest, you can cut them
easily, like carrots or parsnips, with a high water content that can be dried out in
the sun. Then they become quite hard. Ron knows, as he has done some
gasification tests on rootfuel. So cut them up before drying, not after, or the
cutting will consume far too much energy. Composition on dry basis is essentially
cellulosic fibers with starch. Cellulose and starch have the same empirical
formula.

Some mineral content in the rootfuel, more than woodfuel, unless you wash the
fresh roots thoroughly to get the dirt off. But it's hard to get all the dirt
off. The starch has been tested for industrial uses, and it seems to be of no
interest. The roots are bitter, due to presence of small amounts of bitter
compounds, so the fresh roots, vines and leaves are not good for feed or food.
Very little lignin in the roots. Essentially all of it is in the tan-colored
pericarp (the skin) of the starchy-cellulosic root. Essentially none in the
near-white interior of the root.

Re the state of the art? The same as in 1995 when we did our last study in
Brazil. To my knowledge, no one is working on rootfuel.

Why do I think rootfuel has value for stovers, perhaps? It is possible to
burn it essentially smokelessly, so that ought to make matters easier. Works in
lots of different stoves. Just make sure that the rootfuel is very dry. Since
it contains starch (which is hygroscopic) then give stored rootfuel a couple of
days in the sun before burning it, to make sure it is dry. If you want smoke
for gasification then you don't have to be so fussy about drying it, I guess.

(RWL insert question: 3. Gene - Thanks for this further comment. The valuable part to me in the small pyrolysis testing I did was that in the process of going from the soft form to the dried hard form, one could easily get a desirable shape (right length - right width) for the final combustible product. I still prefer round small pieces (in between twigs and branches) that are just the right length - but these are pretty close. Obviously they can be made straight for the vertical orientation I find important, but they can never be made uniform like long extrusions. For those who have not had the experience, the Buffalo gourd roots are in between carrots and turnips in character before they are dried.
Question 3: I think stovers would like to better understand how you harvest and what sort of soil is needed to ensure that you don't overly disturb the soil during the harvest. Also perhaps typical growing season and where you would recommend further research - and why.)

Our experience with many rural women in Mexico, Brazil, Zimbabwe, India,
Pakistan, etc. is that most, by far, know how to build a good kitchen fire to
minimize smoke. I have learned much about cooking in various stoves from poor
rural Third World women. But I suspect that maybe 10% don't know much about
building a fire. They crowd the woodfuel pieces (or rootfuel) so close together that
the fire nearly goes out and smoldering takes over, with lots of smoke, and
then they just endure the smoke. But they learn quickly not to crowd the fuel
pieces so close together, when shown. All the best, Gene

(RWL insert comment/question: 4. Gene - I agree that spacing is hugely important - maybe especially in natural draft pyrolysis stoves. If too closely spaced, one can never make it work because of primary air limitations (without forced air). If too far apart, there is insufficient radiant capture (as mentioned above) - and one won't obtain uniform downward transmission of the pyrolysis front. (Spacing is especially important near the edge - too flat an outer surface will prevent pyrolysis.)
Question #4 (for Gene and everyone) - At the Seattle meetings, I was trying to interest all I could talk to about the possibility of a better geometry being one which might be termed an inverse of the "Boy Scout "tepee"". The normal "tepee" works great as a start because there is the above identified optimum spacing - but it soon falls down. With an inverted tepee, we can arrange to have continuous feed. The "floor" of the stove needs to conical (point down) rather than flat. Gene - I wonder if you or anyone else has experience with such a proposal.
Again - thanks for reminding us of your very interesting background and experience in stoves and many stove fuels.

Ron

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sat Feb 28 18:42:35 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Root FUels
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.164235.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Gene, Nandu and All:

Glad to see Gene Schultz speaking up here.

I remember very well that Gene worked with a group here in Denver on root
fuels. I think I have some "among my souveniers". But I never heard that
anyone planted them for actual use or how they would burn better than wood.
I hope Gene can catch us up...

We have now a new use for root fuels. Dr. Karve has developed a digester
that uses starch or sugars to make methane - a 35 gallon drum size is enough
for a family to cook with. I presume these root plants would be a good
source of the starch, but what do I know. Comments?

TOM REED BEF

Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
>
> Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for woody
> roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots, with
low
> content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
woodfuel.
> Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical roots we
studied
> for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such as
> buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
sun-dry
> such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of moisture
> content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very little
smoke, almost
> smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be stacked
in
> such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you get
> smoldering and lots of smoke production).
>
> Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water, and
> also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico, Brazil,
> Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous (causes
root rot),
> hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how much
> water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
means
> faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
into root
> rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out to
dry
> in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who need
jobs.
> If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the literature.
Mostly
> in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"

> Stovers:
>
> 1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene Shultz
> that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially for
> lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found worked
> very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was evident).
> These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also through
a
> local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than wood.
>
> 2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires joining
> the list by going to:
> http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see also
> how to post after joining.
>
> Ron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
> To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
> Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
>
>
> > Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass
this
> > along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not to
> bother you.
> >
> > Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be
relatively
> > smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free carbon.
Our
> 1984
> > chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels for
> > Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my grad
> student,
> > Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as part
of
> her 1982
> > M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> > constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
> characteristics" (page
> > 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located
either.
> > However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
> library.
> >
> > On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded
kerosene
> > lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if ample
> oxygen is
> > available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
> therefore,
> > candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
> improvements:
> > use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
> incorporate
> > this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp known
as
> the
> > Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10 candlepower."
> >
> > On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use
several
> > flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25 times as
> much,
> > three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good flow
up
> the
> > wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the oil
> is
> > highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization are
> > potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization of
> oil in the
> > wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
> >
> > According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page 230),
> > seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
> Kerosene's value
> > is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from
illuminating
> > fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
> oxygen" (p.
> > 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
> practical,
> > simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old
lit,
> and
> > our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
> interested
> > in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> >
> > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for woody
> > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots,
with
> low
> > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> woodfuel.
> > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical roots
we
> studied
> > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such
as
> > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
> sun-dry
> > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
moisture
> > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very little
> smoke, almost
> > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
stacked
> in
> > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you
get
> > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> >
> > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water,
and
> > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
Brazil,
> > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous (causes
> root rot),
> > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how
much
> > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
> means
> > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
> into root
> > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out to
> dry
> > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who need
> jobs.
> > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the literature.
> Mostly
> > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
> >
> > And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
> >
> > Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12. Oilseeds
as
> > Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B. Shultz,
Jr.
> and
> > Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds: Technology
and
> Policy
> > Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
> >
> > Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
> Anyone
> > interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with a
> postal
> > address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene Shultz,
> > Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
> >

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri Feb 27 20:45:45 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.071545.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Prof. Schultz,
I shall be greatly obliged to you to receive the reprints of the literature
on rootfuels and also on the oil lamps.
The rootfuels can also be very easily converted into biogas, which then
burns with a clean blue flame. Starchy material produces about 800 litres
of biogas per kg and the reaction time is just 6 to 8 hours. We have
successfully tested starch based biogas plants for more than a year. In my
city, three such plants are being operated by restaurant owners, using
leftover food, apart from several householders, who purchased these plants
from us. The only trouble with biogas is that the reaction requires
temperatures ranging between 30 and 40 degrees celsius. For producing root
crops, we have developed a sand bed system, which is actually just a
modification of the nutrient film technique developed in the U.K. These are
channels lined with plastic film and filled with sand. Water and nutrients
are provided through a drip irrigation system. Because the roots grow in
sand, they are very easy to harvest and they also come out very clean. The
capital cost of the system is however rather high, and therefore we
recommend using it for growing high value rhizome crops like turmeric,
vetiver or liquorice.
My address is:
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Maninee Apartments, Survey no. 13,
Dhayarigaon, Pune 411 041,
India
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:48 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Feb 28 20:21:54 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Root FUels
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.212154.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
...del...
>
> We have now a new use for root fuels. Dr. Karve has developed a digester
> that uses starch or sugars to make methane - a 35 gallon drum size is
enough
> for a family to cook with. I presume these root plants would be a good
> source of the starch, but what do I know. Comments?

I also thought the root starch would be of interest to Dr. Karve.

Heres an interesting little twist... it was mentioned that these particular
roots were inedible because of a bitter taste. I am speculating that this
"bitter taste" may be a plant chemical with useful medicinal properties. The
plant probably built this chemical to keep its feet from rotting off. :-) At
any rate, I am pretty sure that the bitter taste is there for a good and
useful purpose. It may very well be that the "bitter taste" could be
extracted to yield a product with economic potential.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> TOM REED BEF
>
> Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> >
> > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for woody
> > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots,
with
> low
> > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> woodfuel.
> > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical roots
we
> studied
> > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such
as
> > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
> sun-dry
> > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
moisture
> > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very little
> smoke, almost
> > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
stacked
> in
> > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you
get
> > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> >
> > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water,
and
> > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
Brazil,
> > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous (causes
> root rot),
> > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how
much
> > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
> means
> > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
> into root
> > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out to
> dry
> > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who need
> jobs.
> > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the literature.
> Mostly
> > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
> >
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:18 PM
> Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
>
>
> > Stovers:
> >
> > 1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene Shultz
> > that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially
for
> > lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found
worked
> > very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was evident).
> > These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also
through
> a
> > local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than wood.
> >
> > 2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires
joining
> > the list by going to:
> > http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see
also
> > how to post after joining.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
> > To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
> > Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass
> this
> > > along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not to
> > bother you.
> > >
> > > Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be
> relatively
> > > smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free carbon.
> Our
> > 1984
> > > chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels
for
> > > Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my
grad
> > student,
> > > Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as part
> of
> > her 1982
> > > M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> > > constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
> > characteristics" (page
> > > 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located
> either.
> > > However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
> > library.
> > >
> > > On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded
> kerosene
> > > lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if ample
> > oxygen is
> > > available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
> > therefore,
> > > candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
> > improvements:
> > > use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
> > incorporate
> > > this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp
known
> as
> > the
> > > Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10 candlepower."
> > >
> > > On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use
> several
> > > flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25 times
as
> > much,
> > > three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good flow
> up
> > the
> > > wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the
oil
> > is
> > > highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization
are
> > > potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization
of
> > oil in the
> > > wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
> > >
> > > According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page 230),
> > > seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
> > Kerosene's value
> > > is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from
> illuminating
> > > fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
> > oxygen" (p.
> > > 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
> > practical,
> > > simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old
> lit,
> > and
> > > our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
> > interested
> > > in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> > >
> > > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for
woody
> > > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots,
> with
> > low
> > > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> > woodfuel.
> > > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical
roots
> we
> > studied
> > > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such
> as
> > > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
> > sun-dry
> > > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
> moisture
> > > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very
little
> > smoke, almost
> > > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
> stacked
> > in
> > > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you
> get
> > > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> > >
> > > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water,
> and
> > > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
> Brazil,
> > > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous
(causes
> > root rot),
> > > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how
> much
> > > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water

> > means
> > > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
> > into root
> > > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out
to
> > dry
> > > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who
need
> > jobs.
> > > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the
literature.
> > Mostly
> > > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
> > >
> > > And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
> > >
> > > Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12. Oilseeds
> as
> > > Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B. Shultz,
> Jr.
> > and
> > > Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds: Technology
> and
> > Policy
> > > Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
> > >
> > > Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
> > Anyone
> > > interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with a
> > postal
> > > address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene Shultz,
> > > Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
> > >

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Feb 28 22:51:08 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Non-edible combustible oils Was: Re: [STOVES] One candle of
heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040227173023.00d33820@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.FEB.2004.215108.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 05:32:41PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> Harmon,
>
> Where is Bayberry grown (specific locations and general environments).

It seems to grow over a large part of the US and Canada, primarily the
eastern parts, but there's also a westcoast version. Likes peaty acid
soils, but grows in dry to wet conditions, bogs, swamps, lake and streams
shores, dunes, etc. Here's a pdf on the various bayberrys:

www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pdf/shrubs/Morella%20caroliniensis.pdf

It's also used as medicine:

"Diarrhea - Bayberry root bark contains an antibiotic chemical (myricitrin),
which may fight a broad range of bacteria and protozoa. Myricitrin's antibiotic
action supports Bayberry's traditional use against diarrhea and dysentery."

http://indianspringherbs.com/bayberry.htm

>
> And can average people make the "wax" from soybeans and the other seeds you
> mentioned? If so, where are the procedures explained?
>

Soy wax is made from hydrogenated soy oil. I'm not sure how hard that would
be to do at home, but here's two papers on the subject:

Rezaei, K., T. Wang, and L. A. Johnson. Hydrogenated vegetable oils as candle
wax. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 79: 1241-1247 (2002).

Rezaei, K, T. Wang, and L.A. Johnson. Combustion characteristics of candles made
from hydrogenated soybean oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 79: 803-808 (2002).

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sat Feb 28 20:58:49 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: sustainability of microenterprises
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.072849.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear stovers,
this is an important aspect, which also applies to stoves and biomass based
improved fuels. Introduction of machines allows mass production at a much
cheaper rate. This destroyed a number of village based enterprises based on
cloth, clothing, leather, bread making, sugar making, metal working, etc.
Availability of cheap new plastics destroyed another set of rural
industries. But in comparison to the last ccentury, the cost of transport as
well as the wages in the organised sector have increased. For a product
made in a central manufacturing unit to reach the consumer, it must be
transported over long distances, stored in a network of warehouses and sold
through a network of distributers and sales outlets. All this costs money.
Thus in the present situation, although the manufacturing cost is low, the
cost of selling is high. A small manufacturer, who operates a business as a
family business, uses local raw materials, and deals directly with the
end-user, is nowadays well in a position to compete successfully with the
organised industry. He also has an added advantage that he is generally not
bothered by laws like the minimum wage act, the act dectating the minimum
age of the employees, the social service tax, insurance of employees, sales
tax, and many other taxes which the organised industry has to pay. In
addition, he also does not have unproductive employees like accountants,
security guards, telephone operators, tax consultants, legal advisers, etc.
Therefore, even if his cost of production is high, his products are often
available at a lower cost to the consumer than the mass produced items.
This principle applies to our improved cookstoves manufactured by potters,
using local clay and sold directly to the users. We are now also trying to
introduce, in the same manner, charcoal made from agro-waste as a rural
household fuel. The same principle may also apply to locally extracted
edible oil, locally made honey, locally made sugar, locally made jams,
jellies, pickles etc. But unfortunately, the micro-entrepreneurs
manufacturing many of these items are greedy and price their products on par
with the branded products, and then lament the fact that the buyers prefered
the better known brands to the locally made items.
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 3:28 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Sun Feb 29 02:27:00 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040228155541.00987bd0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.032700.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

The link works!
In my opinion it is a great paper worth reading and quoting.

Thanks for sharing it Peter.

in a previous message, Peter Singfield on 2/28/04 17:58 at snkm@BTL.NET
wrote:

> While looking through my archives on cohune I came across this paper
> written by an old American Engineer that spent many years in this area.
>
> Do not know if this Url is still good --
>
> http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm
>

--
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that
is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 591 715 16356 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.thehungersite.com

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Feb 29 09:17:24 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: WHO launches website on indoor air pollution
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.061724.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Courtesy of Grant Ballard Tremeer (Hedon)

> Forwarded from Eva Rehfuess, World Health Organisation:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> WHO's website on indoor air pollution went live yesterday, thanks to
> three months of hard work by Julia Schmitz.
>
> At http://www.who.int/indoorair/ you will find a brief overview of the
> health and broader impacts of cooking and heating with solid fuels, a
> description of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution, links
> between household energy and the Millennium Development Goals and,
> last but not least, WHO's activities towards reducing indoor air
> pollution. The website also provides easy access to the burden of
> disease, databases on indoor air pollution and acute respiratory
> infections in children under five, and useful publications and
> information resources.
>
> We welcome any comments and suggestions to improve this site, and
> would like to encourage you to pass this information on to interested
> colleagues.
>
> With best wishes
> Eva
>
> Eva Rehfuess, rehfuesse@who.int
> Protection of the Human Environment
> World Health Organization
> 1211 Geneva 27
> Switzerland
> Tel: +41 22 791 4979
> Fax: +41 22 791 1383

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Feb 29 10:53:45 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.085345.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

David, Peter (cc all stovers):

1. Thanks for the recommendation and citation to the (maybe 1996?)
paper by Rick Wilk (Prof., Anthropology, Indiana):
http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm Since we haven't been on the
delivery topic for a while, two favorable messages in one day on one paper
probably means it is worth more discussion. For the benefit of others, I
will give four citations from the paper which I also enjoyed reading, and
then ask Peter and David a few questions below: The first quote was also
used by Peter and is about a third of the way in to the full paper:
"The most serious problem has been to find social institutions where
hybrid technologies can be developed and tested, where scientists and
indigenous people can interact productively in ways that develop,
articulate, and then meet common goals in an economically feasible fashion.
"
(This paper is about a lot more than the cohune example that Peter uses.
Wilk seems to be concentrating, like Peter, on Belize, but his message is
universal it would seem.)

2. A few pages later: " Simply put, if there is no workable
organization, there is no possibility of a sustainable project, only a sort
of temporary employment for local people. We need not even begin to evaluate
a project's economic and environmental sustainability if there is no social
infrastructure."

3. In the concluding section: "As an alternative to the external
development of autonomous technologies, it is possible for researchers to
get more directly involved in the local, traditional research and
development process. In this paper I have suggested several models through
which collaborative hybrid technologies can be developed, by adding crucial
enabling technologies, or by collaboration in research, testing, and
extension. The key element that makes a difference in this hybrid strategy
is that the ultimate control of the technology remains on the hands of those
who will use it. If the users are not involved in the planning and design of
new technologies, technologies cannot be socially sustainable in the long
term, because the process of development will undermine the self-reliance
and social capital that is the crucial ingredient in sustainable
development."

4. And end-note 17: "The institutional elements that will best predict
sustainable development relate directly to the level of what can be called
"Social Capital." This is the trust, expectation and solidarity that makes
it possible for people to find ways to work together. We know that a history
of local control of resources, local management and local regulation (even
if illegal or informal) are highly correlated with this kind of social
capital. We also know that dramatic social inequality, paternalism,
insecurity and administrative intervention all inhibit the growth of social
capital and community management institutions."

5. So Questions #1 to Peter - Could you describe a bit more on how you
view your role in Belize - is it like the above? Are you there with an
intent to develop hybrid technologies for wider distribution? Any part of
Rick's work that directly overlaps with your own?

6. Questions #2 to David - I am guessing from the title of your
organization that you are in a lot of agreement with Rick. I apologize if I
missed some earlier description of Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con
Energia Solar, but are you employing the principles given above? Can you
describe your group more fully?

7. Questions #3 to anyone else on the list - How can we on "stoves" do
a better job of working with the indigenous groups that Rick Wilk (and many
others on this list) are trying to promote. I think the Karves offer a good
example of how we can work cooperatively. By spreading success stories and
asking questions of those of us who can't work overseas but have the
interest in one area (stoves) where "hybrid" technologies seem to make a lot
of sense. Wilk doesn't talk about how the web can be important in
developing this team spirit. Can groups like "stoves" help?

Thanks again to Peter and David.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar
<solar1@ZUPER.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar
> <solar1@ZUPER.NET>
> Subject: Re: Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> The link works!
> In my opinion it is a great paper worth reading and quoting.
>
> Thanks for sharing it Peter.
>
> in a previous message, Peter Singfield on 2/28/04 17:58 at snkm@BTL.NET
> wrote:
>
> > While looking through my archives on cohune I came across this paper
> > written by an old American Engineer that spent many years in this area.
> >
> > Do not know if this Url is still good --
> >
> > http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm
> >
>
> --
> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life
that
> is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela
>
> David Whitfield
> Director
> CEDESOL
> P.O. Box 4723
> La Paz Bolivia South America
> 591-2-2414882 office 591 715 16356 cellular
>
> solar1@zuper.net
> aguaviva@zuper.net
> dewv@yahoo.com
>
> http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm
>
> http://www.thehungersite.com
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Feb 29 05:14:28 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Root Fuels
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.154428.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Kevin,
roots of all crops contain potent antibiotics. All roots store starch. If
you cut off any plant at the soil level, it would sprout again by utilizing
the food stored in the roots. Every gram of soil contains about ten
thousand million microorganisms. They would love to get this ready made
food stored in the roots, but they cannot do so, because of the
antimicrobial substances in the roots. The active ingredients consist of a
large array of secondary metabolites such as alkaloids, saponins, cyanogenic
glucosides, steroids, lectins, etc. A large majority of them are outright
poisonous to humans, but there are still many that are not poisonous. Most
ancient civilizations knew about the medicinal properties of roots. For
instance, about 60% of the formulations in Ayurveda, the Indian traditional
system of medicine, are based on root drugs.
Just as roots have potent antimicrobial substances, the aerial portions
of plants have insecticidal chemicals in them. In nature, there are about
100,000 species of insects that can be termed as herbivorous. However, one
does not find more than 4 or 5 of them feeding on any given plant species,
and the insects feeding on one particular speices (e.g. rapeseed) are
different from those feeding on another species( e.g. wheat). This is
explained by the fact, that each plant species has a different insecticidal
chemical, and only those handful of species that have evolved the ability to
digest that particular poison, can feed on that particular species. This
also suggests a way of insect control by making use of genetic engineering.
Transfer the insecticidal genes from a sunflower plant to rice! The
traditional insects feeding on rice would not be able to digest the
sunflower insecticides and that would keep rice free of all its traditional
insects.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Root FUels

> Dear Tom
> ...del...
> >
> > We have now a new use for root fuels. Dr. Karve has developed a
digester
> > that uses starch or sugars to make methane - a 35 gallon drum size is
> enough
> > for a family to cook with. I presume these root plants would be a good
> > source of the starch, but what do I know. Comments?
>
> I also thought the root starch would be of interest to Dr. Karve.
>
> Heres an interesting little twist... it was mentioned that these
particular
> roots were inedible because of a bitter taste. I am speculating that this
> "bitter taste" may be a plant chemical with useful medicinal properties.
The
> plant probably built this chemical to keep its feet from rotting off. :-)
At
> any rate, I am pretty sure that the bitter taste is there for a good and
> useful purpose. It may very well be that the "bitter taste" could be
> extracted to yield a product with economic potential.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > TOM REED BEF
> >
> > Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> > >
> > > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for
woody
> > > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic roots,
> with
> > low
> > > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> > woodfuel.
> > > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical
roots
> we
> > studied
> > > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family) such
> as
> > > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible to
> > sun-dry
> > > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
> moisture
> > > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very
little
> > smoke, almost
> > > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
> stacked
> > in
> > > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so you
> get
> > > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> > >
> > > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate water,
> and
> > > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
> Brazil,
> > > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous
(causes
> > root rot),
> > > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing how
> much
> > > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More water
> > means
> > > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it goes
> > into root
> > > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread out
to
> > dry
> > > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who
need
> > jobs.
> > > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the
literature.
> > Mostly
> > > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to you.
> > >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:18 PM
> > Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
> >
> >
> > > Stovers:
> > >
> > > 1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene
Shultz
> > > that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially
> for
> > > lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found
> worked
> > > very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was
evident).
> > > These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also
> through
> > a
> > > local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than
wood.
> > >
> > > 2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires
> joining
> > > the list by going to:
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see
> also
> > > how to post after joining.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
> > > To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
> > > Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass
> > this
> > > > along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not
to
> > > bother you.
> > > >
> > > > Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be
> > relatively
> > > > smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free
carbon.
> > Our
> > > 1984
> > > > chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels
> for
> > > > Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my
> grad
> > > student,
> > > > Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as
part
> > of
> > > her 1982
> > > > M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> > > > constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
> > > characteristics" (page
> > > > 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located
> > either.
> > > > However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
> > > library.
> > > >
> > > > On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded
> > kerosene
> > > > lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if
ample
> > > oxygen is
> > > > available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
> > > therefore,
> > > > candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
> > > improvements:
> > > > use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
> > > incorporate
> > > > this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp
> known
> > as
> > > the
> > > > Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10
candlepower."
> > > >
> > > > On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use
> > several
> > > > flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25
times
> as
> > > much,
> > > > three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good
flow
> > up
> > > the
> > > > wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the
> oil
> > > is
> > > > highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization
> are
> > > > potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization
> of
> > > oil in the
> > > > wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
> > > >
> > > > According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page
230),
> > > > seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
> > > Kerosene's value
> > > > is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from
> > illuminating
> > > > fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
> > > oxygen" (p.
> > > > 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
> > > practical,
> > > > simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old
> > lit,
> > > and
> > > > our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
> > > interested
> > > > in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> > > >
> > > > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for
> woody
> > > > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic
roots,
> > with
> > > low
> > > > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> > > woodfuel.
> > > > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical
> roots
> > we
> > > studied
> > > > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family)
such
> > as
> > > > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible
to
> > > sun-dry
> > > > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
> > moisture
> > > > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very
> little
> > > smoke, almost
> > > > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
> > stacked
> > > in
> > > > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so
you
> > get
> > > > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> > > >
> > > > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate
water,
> > and
> > > > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
> > Brazil,
> > > > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous
> (causes
> > > root rot),
> > > > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing
how
> > much
> > > > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More
water
>
> > > means
> > > > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it
goes
> > > into root
> > > > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread
out
> to
> > > dry
> > > > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who
> need
> > > jobs.
> > > > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the
> literature.
> > > Mostly
> > > > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to
you.
> > > >
> > > > And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
> > > >
> > > > Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12.
Oilseeds
> > as
> > > > Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B.
Shultz,
> > Jr.
> > > and
> > > > Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds:
Technology
> > and
> > > Policy
> > > > Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
> > > >
> > > > Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
> > > Anyone
> > > > interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with
a
> > > postal
> > > > address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene
Shultz,
> > > > Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
> > > >

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Sun Feb 29 13:56:28 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Beekeeper wants smoke?? was Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040227191901.023d4c20@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.185628.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Paul,
My interest extended from gasification. I am slowly building a 5kw wood
gasifier.

The beekeeper's smoker is bottom lit up draft, usually burning hessian
(burlap I think ) or rolled corrugated cardboard. Best white smoke
emerges when the material is very slightly damp. It needs to be a cold
smoke.
Point me please to the details of the JUNTOS and I will look
Sincerely
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
Sent: 28 February 2004 01:25
To: Ken Basterfield; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Beekeeper wants smoke?? was Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat

Ken,

Anyway, we are all glad that you are on the Stoves list. And thanks for

your clear comments about beeswax.

Paul

At 04:57 PM 2/26/04 +0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
>Dear all,
>I enjoy the enlightening exchanges but can rarely contribute. I cannot
>comment as to whether the vapours given off differ for beeswax or
>paraffin wax
>
>However, as a commercial beekeeper who has produced much beeswax let me
>say that Beeswax is generally far too expensive to be burnt as candles.
>There are other competing demands, not only recycling in the apiary,
>which keeps the price up. Few 'beeswax' candles actually contain much
>beeswax most are admixtures or paraffin wax with a final dip of beeswax
>on the top.
>
>The 'purity' of beeswax is special to the Roman Catholics for the
>simple reason of association with Mary, in that the wax is produced by
>the virgin worker bees. Even church candles generally contain only
small
>amounts of beeswax.
>
>Much beeswax is imported from Africa ( generally dirty but
>uncontaminated) Other supplies come in from mainland China though
>reputedly with much adulteration and chemical and antibiotic
>contamination. The ban on Chinese honey ( mainly for antibiotic
residues
>) means that some of these hive products are being laundered through
>other s.e.asian contries.
>
>The point is-- how do you know it is beeswax that you are burning when
>you try to compare with the paraffin candles.
>
>As a commodity, particularly in the third world, better sell beeswax
and
>buy in something cheaper if candles are really needed
>
>Sincerely
>ken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
>Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
>Sent: 25 February 2004 14:23
>To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] One candle of heat
>
>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:42:27PM +0530, Dutta wrote:
> > Stovers,
> > I have been following this interesting exchange of notes on 1 candle
>of
> > heat, which will also provide light. The idea of making a cup of tea
>by
> > candle light and on candle light ( flame I guess) sounds
academically
> > speaking quite feasible as calculated by Andrew Heggie.
> >
> > But are you aware that although a candle consists primarily of wax
>and a
> > wick, some candles reportedly contain lead wicks because it stiffens
>the
> > wick and gives a more even burn.Burning candles with lead-treated
>wicks can
> > release fine particles of the toxic metal into the air.
>
> I recently heard someone on the radio warning about burning candles
>in the
>home, that paraffin candles put out quite a bit of pollutants whereas
>beeswax
>candles didn't. I can't recall the exact figures.
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun Feb 29 18:08:46 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: sustainability of microenterprises
In-Reply-To: <000b01c3fe8f$4fe51ee0$305541db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.170846.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

A.D. and Peter have made some interesting points about
sustainability. Below, my comments both agree and disagree with A.D., and
indicate the complexity of the problems of sustainablility.

***** agreement ******

I am reading the book "Natural Capitalism" (recommended to you all). It
makes the point (as does A.D.) that there are many additional costs
associated with "modern" manufacturing, such as transport to market
(includes burning fossil fuels) and much more.

HOWEVER, in the "developed world's" conception of the benefits of large
industry there is also the idea and practice of providing government
"subsidies" (benefits, incentives, bureaucratic support, etc.) that are
used to keep the prices down for the consumer. Sounds good, except that
the "village industry" does not get those or other supports, making it more
difficult to compete.

ONE example that is close to home for us Stovers: How can we promote
biomass stoves successfully when fossil fuels get massive "support" that is
not forthcoming for wood chips and rootfuels and other aspects of our efforts?

**** below is disagreement *************

BUT, to keep perspective in relation to A.D.'s comments, many of us are NOT
thrilled that in some countries young children can be put to labor (no
schooling, lower wages, etc.) in "village industries" that are out of sight
of those who are (we hope) trying to cut back on abusive child labor in the
larger factories.

Nor can village industry be justified when the village people do not pay
the income (profit) taxes or contribute to the social service taxes or to
sales taxes but still want the better roads and schools, etc.

Finally, it is not very realistic to refer to "...employees like
accountants, security guards, telephone operators, tax consultants, legal
advisers, etc." as "unproductive." Most of us who are working with NGO's
find that the services of accountants, guards, etc are needed both by the
NGO and by the people we are trying to assist. Otherwise, our
"productive" ("production-line") work will suffer. These
"non-production-line" employees contribute greatly to the ability of large
industries to compete against the village industries.

*****************
I have met A.D. and I clearly know that he is NOT in favor of child labor
or any other of the negatives, so we should not take out of context what we
Stovers write.

AND I personally think that children DO need to do some work, especially as
is appropriate to their ages. America makes it hard for parents to get
their children into a working-mode when the children under age 16 can
hardly find anything they are allowed to do for employment and to start
earning some money, other than newspaper delivery, detassel corn, baby-sit,
and what else?? Unless, of course, the parents own the business, in
which case they can bring in "family labor" at earlier ages. ( as is done
in the "village industries" owned by the local craftspersons. ;-)) )

I hope this has given us all something to think about.

Paul

At 07:28 AM 2/29/04 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>Dear stovers,
>this is an important aspect, which also applies to stoves and biomass based
>improved fuels. Introduction of machines allows mass production at a much
>cheaper rate. This destroyed a number of village based enterprises based on
>cloth, clothing, leather, bread making, sugar making, metal working, etc.
>Availability of cheap new plastics destroyed another set of rural
>industries. But in comparison to the last ccentury, the cost of transport as
>well as the wages in the organised sector have increased. For a product
>made in a central manufacturing unit to reach the consumer, it must be
>transported over long distances, stored in a network of warehouses and sold
>through a network of distributers and sales outlets. All this costs money.
>Thus in the present situation, although the manufacturing cost is low, the
>cost of selling is high. A small manufacturer, who operates a business as a
>family business, uses local raw materials, and deals directly with the
>end-user, is nowadays well in a position to compete successfully with the
>organised industry. He also has an added advantage that he is generally not
>bothered by laws like the minimum wage act, the act dectating the minimum
>age of the employees, the social service tax, insurance of employees, sales
>tax, and many other taxes which the organised industry has to pay. In
>addition, he also does not have unproductive employees like accountants,
>security guards, telephone operators, tax consultants, legal advisers, etc.
>Therefore, even if his cost of production is high, his products are often
>available at a lower cost to the consumer than the mass produced items.
>This principle applies to our improved cookstoves manufactured by potters,
>using local clay and sold directly to the users. We are now also trying to
>introduce, in the same manner, charcoal made from agro-waste as a rural
>household fuel. The same principle may also apply to locally extracted
>edible oil, locally made honey, locally made sugar, locally made jams,
>jellies, pickles etc. But unfortunately, the micro-entrepreneurs
>manufacturing many of these items are greedy and price their products on par
>with the branded products, and then lament the fact that the buyers prefered
>the better known brands to the locally made items.
>Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>Pune, India.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 3:28 AM
>Subject: [STOVES] Stoves -- Cohunes -- and sustainability

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Feb 29 11:18:03 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.214803.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr. Krenzel,
both the values are correct. The 800 litres to biogas represents the mixture
of carbon dioxide and methane, which one theoretically gets from a kg of
starch, whereas the 400 litres refer to methane alone.
In the case of our starch/sugar based biogas plant, we
get almost pure methane. I am not sure as to what happens to the carbon
dioxide, but I assume that it dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
diffuses out through the gap between the digester and the gas holder. What
is left in the gas holder is the high grade biogas that you refer to.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604@earthlink.net>
To: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"

> Dr. Karve,
>
> I have been following this topic on biogas production since you opened the
> thread over a month ago. In the initial messages, the process was
supposed
> to produce 400 liters of high quality gas per Kg of starch. Your latest
> email regarding the gas production of this process indicates the yield to
be
> 800 liters of gas per Kg of starch.
>
> What is the correct value?
>
> Large, high yielding anaerobic biogas plants can produce 300 - 400 liters
of
> gas from food waste residues and selected solid wastes so I think the
first
> number is perhaps the correct value.
>
> Art Krenzel, P.E.
> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
> 10505 NE 285TH Street
> Battle Ground, WA 98604
> 360-666-1883 voice
> phoenix98604@earthlink.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
>
>
> > Dear Prof. Schultz,
> > I shall be greatly obliged to you to receive the reprints of the
> literature
> > on rootfuels and also on the oil lamps.
> > The rootfuels can also be very easily converted into biogas, which then
> > burns with a clean blue flame. Starchy material produces about 800
litres
> > of biogas per kg and the reaction time is just 6 to 8 hours. We have
> > successfully tested starch based biogas plants for more than a year. In
> my
> > city, three such plants are being operated by restaurant owners, using
> > leftover food, apart from several householders, who purchased these
plants
> > from us. The only trouble with biogas is that the reaction requires
> > temperatures ranging between 30 and 40 degrees celsius. For producing
root
> > crops, we have developed a sand bed system, which is actually just a
> > modification of the nutrient film technique developed in the U.K. These
> are
> > channels lined with plastic film and filled with sand. Water and
> nutrients
> > are provided through a drip irrigation system. Because the roots grow in
> > sand, they are very easy to harvest and they also come out very clean.
The
> > capital cost of the system is however rather high, and therefore we
> > recommend using it for growing high value rhizome crops like turmeric,
> > vetiver or liquorice.
> > My address is:
> > Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> > Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> > Maninee Apartments, Survey no. 13,
> > Dhayarigaon, Pune 411 041,
> > India
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:48 AM
> > Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
> >
> >
> > > Stovers:
> > >
> > > 1. Again, I am pleased to forward another response from Gene
Shultz
> > > that further advances our knowledge on 1) seed oils - and especially
> for
> > > lamps and 2) on the (renewed) subject of rootfuels (which I found
> worked
> > > very well in pyrolysis stoves - but maybe a bit more odor was
evident).
> > > These dried root fuels (supplied by Gene who was working also
> through
> > a
> > > local researcher) were much heavier and tougher (like a rock) than
wood.
> > >
> > > 2. Below, Gene asks how to self-post - which only first requires
> joining
> > > the list by going to:
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html There you will see
> also
> > > how to post after joining.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
> > > To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:38 AM
> > > Subject: Seed oil lamps, and "rootfuel"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Ron: I don't know how to post comments on the list, so pls pass
> > this
> > > > along, and also pls explain to me how I can do it myself so as not
to
> > > bother you.
> > > >
> > > > Re smoke production from burning seed oils. Some flames can be
> > relatively
> > > > smokeless, others smokey with production of considerable free
carbon.
> > Our
> > > 1984
> > > > chapter (Mathieu and Shultz, Oilseeds as Lighting and Cooking Fuels
> for
> > > > Developing Nations) has some info of interest, I think. Example: my
> grad
> > > student,
> > > > Sandy Mathieu, summarized some preliminary tests she conducted as
part
> > of
> > > her 1982
> > > > M.S. thesis, using jute, sisal and cotton wicks. "How the wicks are
> > > > constructed, as well as their shape, may also influence flame
> > > characteristics" (page
> > > > 229). I can't find my copy of her thesis, and she can't be located
> > either.
> > > > However, the thesis has got to be in the basement of our university
> > > library.
> > > >
> > > > On page 228 of our chapter on seedoil lamps (which long preceded
> > kerosene
> > > > lamps, historically), we say that "Optimum light is produced if
ample
> > > oxygen is
> > > > available and if the flame temperature is high....Oxygen supply and,
> > > therefore,
> > > > candlepower can be dramatically improved by two simple design
> > > improvements:
> > > > use of a chimney and a hollow or thin wick. The first device to
> > > incorporate
> > > > this combination of features was a gravity-fed vegetable oil lamp
> known
> > as
> > > the
> > > > Argand burner (6,10) introduced in 1783 and rated at 10
candlepower."
> > > >
> > > > On page 229, "Another way to design for high candlepower is to use
> > several
> > > > flames in close proximity to each other." (Two flames give 2.25
times
> as
> > > much,
> > > > three flames give 3.86 times, according to the old lit). For good
flow
> > up
> > > the
> > > > wick, you want an oil with low viscosity, but this may mean that the
> oil
> > > is
> > > > highly unsaturated, so spontaneous auto-oxidation and polymerization
> are
> > > > potential problems in the oil reservoir in the lamp. "Polymerization
> of
> > > oil in the
> > > > wick might lead to a charred wick and a smokey flame" (page 230).
> > > >
> > > > According to Steinmetz (1909) who is cited in our chapter (page
230),
> > > > seedoils exhibit a range of luminosity indices between 1.7 and 2.2.
> > > Kerosene's value
> > > > is 2.2. Steinmetz says that "smoke cannot be eliminated from
> > illuminating
> > > > fuels with indices of less than 2.0, without the direct addition of
> > > oxygen" (p.
> > > > 230). On page 230, Sandy and I provided our best speculations on how
> > > practical,
> > > > simple seedoil lamps might be designed, based on a review of the old
> > lit,
> > > and
> > > > our own ideas. But we never followed up. Sandy graduated, and I got
> > > interested
> > > > in rootfuel, instead. Rootfuel is a novel solid cooking fuel.
> > > >
> > > > Rootfuel (my name for it, there might be others) is NOT a name for
> woody
> > > > roots. Instead, I think of rootfuel only as starchy/cellulosic
roots,
> > with
> > > low
> > > > content of lignin. That is what mainly distinguishes rootfuel from
> > > woodfuel.
> > > > Also, you can produce very dry rootfuel, unlike woodfuel. Typical
> roots
> > we
> > > studied
> > > > for some years are roots of wild cucurbits (squash, melon family)
such
> > as
> > > > buffalo gourd, as it is called in the SW of the USA. It is possible
to
> > > sun-dry
> > > > such carrot-shaped and carrot-sized roots to a very low level of
> > moisture
> > > > content, and burn them in simple stoves and open fires with very
> little
> > > smoke, almost
> > > > smokelessly. But the roots must be very dry, and the fuel must be
> > stacked
> > > in
> > > > such a way that air can get to it (which snuffs out the flame, so
you
> > get
> > > > smoldering and lots of smoke production).
> > > >
> > > > Of course, you have to grow rootfuel and that requires adequate
water,
> > and
> > > > also permeable soils. In our rootfuel tests in New Mexico, Mexico,
> > Brazil,
> > > > Zimbabwe, etc. it was clear that over-watering can be disastrous
> (causes
> > > root rot),
> > > > hence the need for sandy soils. Ponding is to be avoided. Knowing
how
> > much
> > > > water to provide is important, if irrigation is to be used. More
water
> > > means
> > > > faster growth of more and larger roots. But too much water and it
goes
> > > into root
> > > > rot. The roots have to be harvested in 3 or 4 months, and spread
out
> to
> > > dry
> > > > in the sun. Labor intensive, yes, but there are a lot of folks who
> need
> > > jobs.
> > > > If anyone is interested in rootfuel, I can help you get the
> literature.
> > > Mostly
> > > > in conference proceedings, but I can photocopy and snail mail to
you.
> > > >
> > > > And here's the reference to our seedoil chapter:
> > > >
> > > > Sandra Lee Mathieu and Eugene B. Shultz, Jr., 1984. Chap. 12.
Oilseeds
> > as
> > > > Lighting and Cooking Fuel for Developing Nations, in Eugene B.
Shultz,
> > Jr.
> > > and
> > > > Robert P. Morgan, eds., Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds:
Technology
> > and
> > > Policy
> > > > Options. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
> > > >
> > > > Since this book is a long time out of print, it may be hard to find.
> > > Anyone
> > > > interested in the above chapter, should send me an email, along with
a
> > > postal
> > > > address, and I will snail-mail a photocopy. All the best, Gene
Shultz,
> > > > Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
> > > >
>

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sun Feb 29 18:56:52 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: sustainability of microenterprises
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040229162143.023e8550@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.155652.0800.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear A.D. Karve and Paul,

We come up against this discussion because Aprovecho has assisted designing
stoves for both home made and commercial applications. Is it helpful to
comment that different strategies of development and stove dissemination may
be appropriate depending on circumstance?

I lived on a ranch for ten years in Mexico that transitioned from almost
complete self sufficiency to complex connectedness to commercial culture in
that decade. Making stoves without imported technology was the only option
in the beginning. Near the end of my stay almost everything was purchased.
We had a road, fish were sold in town 85 kilometers from the ranch, cookies
and hammers and mayonnaise were easily obtained. When I arrived by rowboat,
the rancheros only got to town every other month or so. We did not sell
cheese, meat, dates, fruit, fish because we did not have a road. We ate our
produce and had almost no economic ties to the commercial culture.

In places without distribution networks (not much personal income) it seems
likely to me that new technologies like stoves are much more likely to be
along the lines of a homemade mud and sand Lorena. Maybe local folks become
experts and exchange building a stove for other traded services.

When the ranch has entered the commercial world all other sorts of
opportunities become possible. If a HELPS ONIL griddle stove was available
in the CONOSUPO store now open at el rancho San Nicolas someone would
eventually buy it, having saved money for the purchase or after a lucky day
fishing.

Best,

Dean

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Feb 29 20:06:26 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Forwarding more - mostly on rootfuels (#4)
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.180626.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers - again a reply from Gene. Ron
(ps - I liked the idea of the starches going directly into digesters and
hope we can hear more at some tme from A.D. or others). I wonder if they
would have to be minced/mashed or can be put in whole.)

----- Original Message -----
From: <GeneShu@aol.com>
To: <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Forwarding more - mostly on rootfuels

> Dear Ron: Replying to your questions, all good ones:
>
> 1. I never thought of "holey" briquettes. Neither did Sandy. Good idea.
All
> we were trying to do was to increase the surface to volume ratio to hold
down
> smoke generation (due to lack of primary air diffusing to surfaces).
>
> 2. Thanks very much. (RWL2 - This was in response to my saying Gene had
been away too long.)
>
> 3. Buffalo gourd roots are more like carrots of normal size, shape adn
weight
> when they are small, one season in age (3 to 4 months typical in New
Mexico).
> If the growing season is longer, they tend to get fatter as well as
longer.
> (Very old, heavy wild roots tend toward a bulbous shape). In New Mexico
our
> agronomy colleagues grew some roots for two consecutive seasons, by not
> harvesting them after the first season, and just allowing them to
winter-over and
> continue growth the second season. Guess what! The 2 year roots were twice
as heavy
> as the one-year roots, but the shape was approaching that of a turnip more
> than a carrot, as you say.
>
> Re harvesting and best soils, and growing season. Stop me if your eyes are
> glazing over after this response. We started by hiring labor to dig roots.
Then
> we got more funding and rented a potato digger. Then we had a welder
extend
> the blades of the potato digger, as the normal length was cutting roots in
> halves, and leaving half the harvest in the soil. One thing after another.
But it
> is possible to do it this way, with a tractor and a modified potato
digger. I
> consulted with an ag engineering prof at Texas Tech, and he sketched out a
more
> sophisticated machine in minutes, based on the above experience. He felt
it
> wouldn't be a difficult thing to develop. But we didn't get around to
writing a
> grant proposal.
>
> If the soil is heavy with clay, you lose two ways. The soil won't be
> permeable, so ponding may occur after a rainstorm, and that can trigger
root rot in 24
> hours, with a catastrophic outcome. Also, heavy soils are hard to dig,
> requiring extra energy compared to sandy soils. You'll need a huge tractor
and lots
> of fuel will be consumed. Better to stick to one season (2-year seasons
give
> no advantage in root weight, and the larger roots are more difficult to
> harvest, requiring the biggest tractor). Stay away from heavy soils. Plant
in sandy
> soils.
>
> Growing season (NW New Mexico experience). Plant in mid May. The plantlets
> emerge a couple weeks later, in early June, and then you will get 3 months
of
> rapid growth in the summer. The "dark" reactions of photosynthesis are
slowed
> when the nights get cooler in September, even though the days are sunny,
so
> September is only marginally helpful (provides not much additional weight
to the
> roots). The only good reason to wait for the killing frost in late Oct is
to
> cheaply rid you of the vines and leaves, which would get entangled in the
> tractor/harvester mechanism. You can use herbicide to kill the plants
earlier, but
> that added expense isn't needed if you wait for the killing frost to knock
down
> the vines. And the other crops have been harvested by then, so the labor
and
> the tractor are available to you!
>
> Where to do further research? Agriculture is awfully specific to local
> conditions, so a lot of ag type research is needed. My response to where
to do this
> will depend on where you want to provide a replacement for woodfuel, to
cut
> down on smoke (full of greenhouse gases due to incomplete combustion), and
to
> cut down on smoke due to high incidence of under-five mortality from
> smoke-induced respiratory infections, about equal to diarrhea as leading
causes of death
> in kids in rural Latin America, Africa and Asia. I recognize that
> smokelessness can also be provided through the route of developing better
stoves. I'm glad
> that there are more than one route to atain this objective.
>
> 4. Re spacing and geometery. I know that this is a very important
collection
> of considerations, but I sure don't know the answers.
>
> Ciao! Gene
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Feb 29 20:33:52 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:54 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Forwarding more - mostly on rootfuels (#4)
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.213352.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron

Roots would have to be minced or ground, to enable quick and complete
utilization of starch.

However, if there were indeed the "wrong kind of antibiotics" present in the
roots, they could kill the bio-reactor biotics.

Kindest regards,

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:06 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: [STOVES] Forwarding more - mostly on rootfuels (#4)

> Stovers - again a reply from Gene. Ron
> (ps - I liked the idea of the starches going directly into digesters and
> hope we can hear more at some tme from A.D. or others). I wonder if they
> would have to be minced/mashed or can be put in whole.)
>
>

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

February 2004 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive