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

Sun Dec 5 14:12:46 CST 2010

Paul and ccs (adding "Biochar-policy") 

I like all parts of your message below with one exception - thank you for being blunt. The exception is your statement that World Stove (Nathaniel Mulcahy) is acting like the other four in your five-corporation secrecy list. Today, Nat recommended a new video that I found clever but in no way informative about the technical side of his stove operations. But while looking at the new one, I saw this other 1:37 minute video about the Lucia: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zefrhc8kgM&NR=1&feature=fvwp 

Because I have been to his Italian facility and played with several Lucias with several fuels, I can assure everyone that a careful (cursory won't do it) review of what is shown and stated there (and you wouldn't need one in hand) would allow one to duplicate it and understand its principles of operation completely. Nat's is truly a remarkable invention - I know I could not have developed it myself. This video is the complete opposite of secrecy. 

With several presentations at stove, Biochar, and UN-sponsored climate meetings, Nat has freely discussed how it works and has passed it around for close examination. He is showing a totally free (much simpler) design at his web site. But he did all this only after getting his patents. I think it is indeed a unique product that is worthy of patent protection in the best sense of that word. I presume that others are free to try to improve upon it and get there own patents - but my guess is that Nat's is pretty tight . Everyone should go into intentional avoidance of patents with good lawyers on your side first. What's more to get to the foundry casting of the two key parts is not a low budget operation. 

So, I think it is much too hard on Nat (who has used up a great deal of his savings and quite a few years of his life) to say he is not sharing information Companies like those you have listed all have to make money or they go out of existence. A certain amount of secrecy comes with the territory. My point is that Nat has been remarkably open - I think because he has a new idea that is patent protected. Without that protection, we would not have this stove development. I can't see how any of the other four can make any claim on novelty or patents - which they probably all have. His product/patent is scalable to much larger sizes than simple stoves - where patent protection is obviously very critical. He seems to be open to joint ventures. Note he has been careful in training programs with only in-country assembly and a great emphasis on using the produced char for ag and sequestration purposes. So I feel that the implication that he is in this only for money is unfair 

He still has to compete on price and performance with TLUDs (and hopefully some other future designs). There is no monopoly situation here 

I have no financial interest in World Stoves or any other similar stove or pyrolysis operation. 

Ron 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: psanders at ilstu.edu 
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Otto Formo" <formo-o at online.no>, wastemin1 at verizon.net 
Cc: rongretlarson at comcast.net, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 12:09:35 PM 
Subject: Disapprovals about being too closed. Re: [Stoves] Air supply in TLUDs 

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101205/6acd9261/attachment.html>