Crispin and Dale and all,
The topic is the 2-pot stove structure (from two commercial suppliers
and for other sources). And NOT the heat creation unit (which may or
may not be built into the 2-pot stove structure).
For clarification of this, lets be sure that Dale's wood-fire simulator
(natural gas) is considered as equally appropriate as the heat source as
would be the Rocket devices or the TLUD devices.
Dale, this would be right up your alley. Heat transfer.
And this shows how good stove testing could be done by someone who is
NOT a testing center. And Dale should NOT be expected to do this work
on his own time (unless he chooses to do so, with approval by his
employer who has the equipment.).
Do we (Stover community including all of the GACC Partners and GACC
leadership) have a mechanism to get this task accomplished? Perhaps some
Stove Testing Center that gets a considerable chunk of money from GACC
could sub-contract Dale (or other appropriate person) to get this job
done for a relatively small cost.
By the way, how much financial support is the GACC actually putting into
the hands of the Testing Centers? and with what requirements? I
assume that these are "transparent" transactions already done or soon to
be done or at least being planned.
And how can people like us Stovers with this very specific request
actually get this testing onto the agenda in general and/or at a
specific testing site? This is certainly "technology neutral" and
eligible to be financially supported.
Imagine, if we had good data about these 2-pot "attachments", there
could be some very beneficial results ready for anyone to implement.
And are there already results in the hands of Prakti and Envirofit and
others that would be useful if known by others?
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 12/31/2012 1:16 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Dean
Thanks for that clarification.
Paul's request for research into stove structures or types of
structures is interesting in that stoves are not usually well classed
as 'structures' but rather 'models' of some prototypical stove design.
Paul, I am not sure how you would design such research but it surely
would have to include a well vetted evaluation method that gave
results which could be used to interpret the structure as being the
cause an improvement (or not).
Given the 4 major influences: user, fuel, cooking vessel and the
stove, it would be worth spending some time to design the experiment
which would show that the stove (or structure of the stove) was the
contributing variable.
I suspect that Dale Andreatta's wood fire simulator is one approach.
If everyone recalls, he performed a number of heat transfer efficiency
tests using multiple thermocouples and a standard gas-fuelled fire
with a controlled gas flow rate.
Regards
Crispin saying bye-bye to the Old Year
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
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/
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
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/
