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

[Otto Formo]

Dear all and Paul,
thanks for highlighting these issues.
I feel its to much of an important task to let private agendas and hidden efforts to hamper the development of the TLUD Gasifier to play a vital role for the low income households in developing countries.

Thats why I said: 
"Leave it to "others" to test the TLUD Gasifiers Units", because it is so much of importance that we dont "fail" this time.
I feel one time, is one time to much, refering to Kampala in 1990`s and due to certain circumstances that time.
Iam not going to repeat the story, but this time Iam going to put all my efforts to make sure that the TLUD Gasifier consept is going to be spread World Wide and not hamperd by some "amateurs" in the field. 

The tests should be done in full openness at independet reserach centers like MIT in Boston or SINTEF in Norway, or anywhere else..........
The final tuneing and finishing of the gasifiers should be done together with people of varios expertice and skills on different fields, like they are planing for the working groups at the Alliance in NY.

To my knowledge it is not a matter, if its going to happen, but when..............and I hope very soon.
Why Iam so convinced?
Because, I grew up in this small community and we have the highest number of Olympic medalists (Nordic events) in Norway, outnumbered by none and especially if we look at our small population. 
We know it is possible, if you try and work hard enough............and please dont "learn" me how to compete and about "fair play".

If we dont work togehter towards a common goal, I dont think we will achive to much in the future.

Have a nice sunday.

Otto

> From: psanders at ilstu.edu
> Sent: 2010-12-05 20:09:35 CET
> 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]
> 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
> 
>