[Stoves] Disapprovals about being too closed. Re: Air supply in TLUDs

[psanders at ilstu.edu]

Dear Otto, Dean, and all Stovers,

I take issue with one statement by Otto, who wrote about Aprovecho's efforts:

> Good advice:
> Leave it to others to test and tune the TLUD ND Gasifier Units,  
> please....................

I disagree.  We (the Stover community) need everyone working on these  
issues.  And Dean at Aprovecho has great facilities for doing testing  
of emissions.  Dean, keep up the good work!!

Having said that, I now take issue with Dean and the apparent  
Aprovecho approach which is:

1.  Not providing all of the information that the others want to have  
about what testing is going on with the TLUD stoves.

2.  At Aprovecho, not involving to any noticable extent any of the  
pioneers or other experienced advocates of the TLUD stoves.

3.  Having made a major shift of direction from many years of "polite  
tolerance of TLUD gasifiers" to very recent "strong advocacy of TLUD  
gasifiers with bias toward Aprovecho recent initiatives."  EVERYONE is  
most welcome to get onto the TLUD bandwagon, but let's not get into  
"private" separate bandwagons.

Comments:

Sure, everyone is chasing the money.  The money for stoves has been so  
sparse in the past, and it now looks to be like major piles of funds  
could come to some participants, especially those with a tradition of  
being the advisors of the funding sources or recipients of grants in  
the past.

I commend Aprovecho for its leadership and contacts in the past.  But  
not if it takes a self-serving approach at the expense of those who  
have cumulative decades of experience.  Is Aprovecho trying to enter  
the big-time with corporate approaches to the stoves problems?

And while I am at it, why not "prickle" the entire "corporate world  
approach."  The major work by First Energy India (former BP project)  
and the Philips efforts got mentioned in the recent article by Kirk  
Smith as if they were the only serious accomplishments with the most  
modern stoves.  Those cooporations have thrown major money (millions  
of dollars) to have products that now can attract Dr. Smith's attention.

But those corporate efforts have SHARED NOTHING  with the rest of us.   
No info about emissions levels, no cross-fertilization with others.   
"Do it alone or do not do it at all" seems to be too closed, in my  
opinion.

And does that apply to others such as Stove Tech, Enviro-fit, World  
Stove, and any others?  They all seem to be determined to do it all in  
isolation, keeping everything to themselves.   (Some exceptions like  
giving away tid-bits of designs or info does not equate to openness,  
but is good salemanship.)

Is that the way to do business to benefit the poorest of the poor and  
even the moderately poor?  Perhaps it is, or so it seems to be in the  
capitalist model of stove work that is getting the attention.

However, the world arrived at its 2009 state of TLUD knowledge almost  
entirely by the efforts of dedicated individuals primarily on  
personally donated time and materials or as side-efforts to their main  
employment.  Not one of those person is yet deceased, and all are  
still willing -- and highly capable -- to donate and contribute to  
accomplish their dreams.  But there are limits, especially when  
exclusion is stronger than inclusion.

Sincerely,

Paul
"Dr. TLUD"


Quoting Otto Formo <formo-o at online.no>:

> Dear all,
> I just happend to see this statements about the TLUD ND PekoPe and  
> are a bit surprized that Dean, claims "his" TLUD only can use  
> pellets and for how long the pellets lasts in the combustion chamber  
> as a flame and charcoal.
>
> To my knowledge, the real "PekoPe" burns with an open flame for  
> about two hours and glow for another 4-5 houers by using 2,5 kg of  
> pellets made out of wood (pine)..!?
> The other thing I noted was that "his" TLUD gives a number of 400 mg  
> PM, while Paal`s prototype done at the Aprovech Research Center,  
> only gave 223 mg PM in 2009!?
> A lot of water has passed in the river Nile since then, even in  
> Zambezi...........:)
>
> Good advice:
> Leave it to others to test and tune the TLUD ND Gasifier Units,  
> please....................
>
> Otto
> Forester and still a TLUD ND "PekoPe" fan............without a fan........
>
>> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
>> Sent: 2010-12-05 07:54:22 MET
>> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org]
>> Subject: [Stoves] Air supply in TLUDs
>>
>>
>> Dean
>>
>> I think you are describing below only a TLUD that has no control  
>> over the primary air supply. Or one that has a turn down ratio of  
>> unity. We should be able to do much better.
>>
>> I urge having a means of controlling the primary air supply. If one  
>> is intending to consume the produced char, there will be a mighty  
>> small flame at the end or a huge flame at the beginning.
>>
>> There are many ways to control the primary air - at low cost.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dean Still" <dstill at epud.net>
>> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:30:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] K Smith Article in Energy for Sustainable Development
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> Adding more air holes in the bottom of the fuel chamber in a TLUD  
>> allows pellets to burn up completely. If users want bio-char they  
>> just have to have fewer holes. Then the char is made since there is  
>> not enough air to support burning it.
>>
>>
>> If it is tuned (!), the TLUD is very low in PM when it does not  
>> make smoke when starting and finishing the burn. CO is also  
>> generally low. In the well tuned TLUD we generally see around 7g of  
>> CO and 400mg of PM during the WBT compared to a carefully operated  
>> open fire at 55g CO and 2300mg PM. Generally the TLUD makes less  
>> smoke at the finish with more air holes because all the wood burns  
>> up without making smoke.
>>
>>
>> Isn't it great that a TLUD can be operated in both char making and  
>> no char making modes?
>> The user can choose whether they want greater fuel efficiency or to  
>> make an agricultural additive.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Dean
>>


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail