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

Sun Dec 5 17:34:39 CST 2010

Dear All,

The lab at Aprovecho is open to the TLUD community to explore stoves. Come
on by!

 Paal, Paul, Art, Christa, Dale and others have used the emissions hood to
'tune' their TLUDs. We have had the TLUD as a focus of stove camps. Over the
years we have been exposed to the TLUD and have become fascinated like its
inventors. I'll put together a review of our experiments to share at ETHOS.
When we are asked, we try to help folks with their stoves given time, space,
and opportunity. With fan stoves the natural draft TLUD is a possible
candidate for a 90% emission reduction stove. And I love the idea of making
TLUD lanterns and heating stoves! I'll bring a TLUD lantern to ETHOS.

Best,

Dean

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM, <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101205/98d09ff3/attachment.html>