Otto and ccs: I think there is one more reason for confusion that has not yet been well explained. Jock has just (today?) initiated a dialog on biochar and stove education - but it started with only a very few of us who have already in the past mentioned the value of having more of this education activity started. He already has prepared a short draft handout for teachers and students. I have said I want to assist. Some of today's dialog inadvertently related to very detailed points in Jock's draft material. The fault is largely mine for mixing some of the topics up.
I encourage anyone who has some time to devote to this sort of education activity to send Jock or myself a note. I think much of our discussion for the next few months will get much too detailed for general circulation - but Jock will probably have most current details on his web site given below. We especially will need the help of experienced classroom teachers . We should thank Jock for taking this difficult task on. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jock Gill" <[email protected]> To: "Otto Formo" <[email protected]> Cc: "Jock Gill" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "Stanley Richard" <[email protected]>, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 5:34:39 PM Subject: Re: SV: [Stoves] [biochar-policy] More on briquettes and pellets Otto, Thanks for your reply. Yet, I fear, another mis-understanding. Please see a few notes below. Cheers, Jock Jock Gill P.O. Box 3 Peacham, VT 05862 Carbon Negative Solutions (G) (802) 503-1258 On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Otto Formo wrote: Dear Jock, I realy dont know what you guys are up to, but if you think a "second hand" TLUD is good enough for Africa or even Haiti, I think you are on the wrong track. The iCans are not second hand and are principally intended for students so that the students can bring the concepts home and "sell them" to their. This is the only way the word "recycle" got its power: children teaching parents. To work in schools, the cost has to be as low a possible, hence repurposing cans which might otherwise be seen as "waste". The best way to promote the diffusion of clean burning stoves and to reach scale as quickly as possible will be through young students. This follows the internet paradigm of leveraging resources at the edges. May be for the demonstration to students about biochar, but then you have not read the objectives for "The Global Alliance for Clean Cokkstoves" and the focus of the working groups. To my knowledge, to tune a TLUD to produce only biochar and skip the energy content in the biomass is just as easy as you describe in the "Two can " or Ican, you call it. Otto, how did you get the idea I would ever suggest "tune a TLUD to produce only biochar and skip the energy content"? Actually, if you will take the time to make an iCan or two, you will see they are tuned for CLEANEST operation as well as good quality biochar. What it is the point of dirty pyrolysis that creates soot and or wastes fuel? You want students to understand how to get the best performance from any and all fuel they have available, and this will always require tuning. Please take a look at the Peacham Volcano iCan as an example of a dual purpose design: http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/1116 This is a Swiss design converted from combustion to pyrolysis. But even the World Bank is focusing on "both" operations and mentioned even the TLUD consept asking for inputs for their last study on small scale biochar and householdenergy production. Thats a "total" different story when you have to tune the TLUD to operate in both cooking and biochar "modus". This is exactly what the iCan is designed to teach students. Perhaps this is why the State Department has expressed some initial interest? An elephant in the room is perhaps this: The Global Alliance projects a total budget of $250 million for 100 million installed stoves. This is only $2.50 per stove. Yet I see that $10 per stove is a common estimated price point. There is a real disconnect here. Further, I expect that we need something closer to 1 billion of these stoves. The sad part is that we can find billions for war and destruction, but not even $1 billion for clean burning stoves that improve health, the environment and the soils of the world. About Nataniel`s Lucia stove, I canot recal any observation of tests results and thats why I found it strange that Lifetime International is looking for assistance from Dean to tune a TLUD for Haiti................ I thought that Lifetime International was very much linked to WorldStove as a partner, at least on Haiti.........or am I mistaken? I am not informed on this issue so am unable to comment. I cant see to much point to chat on details, which can easily be solved and discussed in a fora like the working groups arranged by the "Alliance", unless "somebody" like to prove their skills to a "learned" audience. Have good nights chat. Otto Cheers, Jock From: Jock Gill [[email protected]] Sent: 2010-12-05 22:59:46 MET To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] , Jock Gill [[email protected]], Stanley Richard [[email protected]], Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [[email protected]] Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-policy] More on briquettes and pellets Ron, I think there is a mis-understanding. My iCans ONLY have primary air air holes in the bottom of the iCan. I start with fewer and smaller until I get a distribution pattern, number of holes, and hole size that is well tuned to the fuel type, size, form factor, and other stove parameters - such as surface area of the pyrolysis zone. I place the iCan inside a second, larger, can for 1] wind protection; lateral heat loss mitigation; safely contain loose bits of red hot charcoal; and so forth. The question is to "vent" this outer can to allow primary air access or not. If the choice is to vent, then where to place the holes for the primary air to enter? These holes in the OUTER can, are NOT on the bottom of the outer can so as to allow it to safely contain any hot bits. So the question is simple, how much venting do you create and where on the side of the outer can do you put the vents. I agree that the ability to regulate the primary air flow into the iCan, the air flow to sustain the pyrolysis, would be very useful. My design goal is simply to create the easiest, and least expensive, introduction into the world of pyrolysis and biochar for young people. Sometimes good enough is just right. I also agree with and second your comments about Nat at World Stove. Cheers, Jock Jock Gill P.O. Box 3 Peacham, VT 05862 Carbon Negative Solutions (G) (802) 503-1258 On Dec 5, 2010, at 4:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: Crispin, Jock, lists I think some of the ideas here may be counterproductive. See below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" < [email protected] > To: "Jock Gill" < [email protected] >, [email protected] , "Stanley Richard" < [email protected] > Cc: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" < [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 8:03:44 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-policy] More on briquettes and pellets Dear Jock Very nice web pages and a well presented instructions provided by the link. I have a question relating to the iCan. Have you tried elevating the primary air holes in the outer can above the bottom? I understand from the photos that the elevated holes are only on the inner cans. [RWL: I would go in the opposite direction - put all primary air holes on the bottom inner can surface - to get more uniform (vertical only) air flow] The reason I ask is that I have found benefit from making the primary air travel downwards at least part of the vertical height. The preheats the air slightly and provides negative buoyancy reducing draft. As the inner can starts to heat up, it increases the negative buoyancy because the inner can is hotter and this interaction tend to self-regulate the power. [RWL: I don's see the value in reducing draft anywhere - we work hard usually to achieve it. Re regulating power, I have always been amazed that with a fixed primary air supply, the power level (as indicated by the apparent rate of steam bubble formation) was amazingly uniform - over a full hour. It is easy and cheap to control power levels through controlling (only) the amount of primary air. I think turn-down ratio is a very important parameter that needs a lot more work. No gas or electric stove (I presume propane, ethanol, etc) manufacturer would give you less than about 3:1 for turn-down ratio. This parameter I think is one of the main reasons we are going to see increased stove use of the discarded fans used for cooling computers.
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Stoves mailing list to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/ [email protected] http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
