[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 52

Kobus Venter vuthisa at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 5 05:15:48 CDT 2011


Your email was read to me using Voice on the Go.
Go to www.voiceonthego.com


> Original Message:
> ---------------------------------
> 
> From: stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org 
> Sent: October 28, 2011 3:00:01 PM
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 52
> 
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> 	stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    2. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Anand Karve)
>    3. Tests online (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    4. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    5. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Frank Shields)
>    6. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    7. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,	Issue 17
>       (Tom Miles)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:49:07 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID: <0eae01cc9578$5db726c0$19257440$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear Dr AD
> 
> My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up
> access to ash?
> 
> Shall I re-phrase it?
> 
> Thanks
> Crispin
> 
> +++++++
> 
> Dear Crispin and stovers,
> biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of
> organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The microbial
> population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil fertility,
> because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become
> available to the green plants.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> 
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Frank
> > Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the 
> > whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would 
> > charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash?
> > Regards
> >
> > Crispin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:01:58 +0800
> From: Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACPy7ScGpbiDtL+HW5pPCL9OfiGskvU202SiGbJWbc__8a3y7w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Dear Crispin,
> you are quite right.  Char can affect soil characteristics like soil
> texture, water holding capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc.
> Good quality charcoal, which does not have any volatiles and
> pyrolignious acid in it, is not expected to serve the soil
> micro-organisms as a source of nutrition. If one wants to extract some
> energy out of biomass before putting it into soil, one should convert
> biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the soil.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Dr AD
> >
> > My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up
> > access to ash?
> >
> > Shall I re-phrase it?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin
> >
> > +++++++
> >
> > Dear Crispin and stovers,
> > biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of
> > organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The microbial
> > population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil fertility,
> > because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become
> > available to the green plants.
> > Yours
> > A.D.Karve
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> > <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Frank
> >> Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the
> >> whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would
> >> charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash?
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Crispin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ***
> Dr. A.D. Karve
> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:12:37 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Tests online
> Message-ID: <0ec901cc9584$07d73db0$1785b910$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear Friends
> 
>  
> 
> I have created a link in the Library at New Dawn Engineering's website to
> some of the more interesting/relevant stoves tests. The Library link on the
> main page now takes you to a couple of sub-menus, one for Stoves and another
> for Tests.
> 
>  
> 
> There is no fancy background - it is just a list of files.  A single click
> will download any file, one at a time.
> 
>  
> 
> The direct link is http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Tests/ 
> 
>  
> 
> If you need a particular stove test result that you are sure was performed I
> can upload it.
> 
>  
> 
> These are all processed using the Heterogeneous Test Protocol, usually with
> no cooking involved. The tests involve an initial fuel load plus a
> refuelling, with `end` being declared when 90% of the total fuel mass has
> been burned. If 90% is not reached (as sometimes happens) it is noted.
> 
>  
> 
> These are all space heating stoves with some cooking ability.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Crispin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/e5ddbe30/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:31:23 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID: <0ee301cc9586$a9998a70$fccc9f50$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear AD
> 
>  
> 
> >Char can affect soil characteristics like soil texture, water holding
> capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> And 
> 
>  
> 
> >If one wants to extract some energy out of biomass before putting it into
> soil, one should convert biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the
> soil.
> 
>  
> 
> So it seems we need to check what the comparative advantages of biogas
> slurry and biochar are. Perhaps both would help. I have not heard of a
> negative result from adding slurry.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Crispin
> 
>  
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/09b1e4f7/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:45:46 -0700
> From: "Frank Shields" <frank at compostlab.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID: <94298C56BD8E454688673782535895AF at cl.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Tom,
> 
>  
> 
> My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total
> weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will
> need to get over that. 
> 
>  
> 
> The IBI has some good test methods that I am now using. Measure pH, salts,
> etc on diluted samples are a few I have changed to. Methods for metal are
> acid digest and is what I have been doing along with most others. The CEC I
> would like to change to an AOAC procedure for peat. And the butane activity
> is left out. Going to iodine. I have been doing 450 deg for calcining temp
> but now raised it to their 600 deg as that is where I have found the butane
> activity is highest (600 to 650 deg C) for most biochar when plotting
> curves. But the loss in weight seems to stabilize at ~450 deg C. I was
> thinking if activity was not that important the lower temperature is all
> that is required.   
> 
>  
> 
> They use a C/H ratio to determine if the biomass is sufficiently charred
> where I was measuring loss in weight after re-charring at 450 deg C. My
> procedure has some real problems and was looking for other ideas. I think
> theirs may be better but still we need to keep looking as I am not sure it
> will weed out tars that would be removed in my procedure and different
> feedstocks may end up with different C/H ratios even when fully charred. So
> on it goes. 
> 
>  
> 
> I was looking into a TGA to do the testing but after sending in samples to
> Leco I was not real happy with the results. This can determine moisture then
> switch over to nitrogen atm and char at predetermined temperature then add
> air and ash at predetermined temperature all in one unite and cycle. This
> should work well. I had them char in nitrogen a sample at different
> temperatures thinking I would get a value that leveled off at 450 deg C as
> what I have found in my pipe system. But my pipe system seems to work
> better. Not sure if air was in their system when they ran it after drying or
> if biomass does change in weight more than I found over temperature
> differences with my pipes. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Frank  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Frank Shields
> 
> Control Laboratories, Inc.
> 
> 42 Hangar Way
> 
> Watsonville, CA  95076
> 
> (831) 724-5422 tel
> 
> (831) 724-3188 fax
> 
> frank at compostlab.com
> 
> www.compostlab.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:29 PM
> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue
> 17
> 
>  
> 
> Frank,
> 
>  
> 
> Test methods. Many oof the ASTM methods for biomass are coal methods that
> have been adjusted for biomass. Usually the calcining temperature of a
> sample for biomass has been reduced by ASTM fro the 900C used for coal to
> 550C or 600 C for biomass. 
> 
>  
> 
> Tom
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Shields
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:06 PM
> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue
> 17
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
>  
> 
> The way I look at it; 
> 
> Biochar is not needed by the plant anymore than peat moss, perlite, sand,
> lime, gypsum etc. These are all materials used to change the texture of the
> soil. Better drainage, hold more water, make water more available, adjust pH
> that changes availability of nutrients, added porosity, add microbes that
> regulate the nutrients etc. If the biochar product adjusts one of these
> components to make the required constituents (water, nutrients, temperature
> etc) more optimum for the plant you will see a benefit. A lot of silica (as
> in rice hulls) may very well be the component that makes the change and the
> carbon fraction has nothing to do with it. Or it could all be from the
> carbon fraction or mixture of both. IMO it is important to determine the
> condition change that has created the increase in plant response. And the
> constituent of the biochar that has done it. Then we can determine the
> biochar quality that should be used on that specific site. 
> 
>  
> 
> But I think we can agree that it's the carbon component we regard as
> important when talking biochar. If it's the silica in rice hulls making the
> difference we could just add something like sand. Being carbon as the
> important fraction biochar quality should be rated based on the carbon
> component. Not only carbon concentration but also the carbon structure (or
> we could just as well add organic matter).  Carbon comes in a range of
> biological activity. Very reactive like green grass, sugars, oils,
> vegetative materials. Semi-reactive materials like wood chips, stabilized
> compost, biosolids and organics from aeration ponds, finished septic systems
> etc and very stabilized like plastic, biochar.  Available carbon increases
> microbes. That in turn uses a lot of oxygen making soils anaerobic creating
> lots of problems.  The reason we compost and have septic systems before
> letting high reactive organics into the environment.  Because biochar claim
> to have a very stabilized carbon (non-available to microbes and oxidation)
> we need to measure to the degree the carbon is stabilized in addition to the
> concentration to rate and compare biochar products. Rice biochar has low
> carbon (not good) but likely high stability (good). And a unique structure,
> that in the right locations and soil type, could make all the difference. 
> 
>  
> 
> It's the test methods that work best to determine the carbon concentration
> and properties that we need to sort out.  Not an easy task thanks to people
> wanting to use coal testing methods for biochar.  We need our own methods
> manual.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Frank
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Frank Shields
> 
> Control Laboratories, Inc.
> 
> 42 Hangar Way
> 
> Watsonville, CA  95076
> 
> (831) 724-5422 tel
> 
> (831) 724-3188 fax
> 
> frank at compostlab.com
> 
> www.compostlab.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:56 AM
> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue
> 17
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Paul
> 
>  
> 
> Do you know if the char has been characterised well, or is it from the smoky
> stacks you described earlier?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Crispin
> 
>  
> 
> ++++++
> 
>  
> 
> Frank,
> 
> Rice hulls biochar makes as excellent soil amendment, as numerous test have
> shown.
> Yields on rice, water spinach and other plants have increased roughly 3-fold
> in the trials that were done in Vietnam and Cambodia.
> If it is not the best biochar, I would be truly exciting to find something
> better.
> 
> Paul Olivier
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/27399bab/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:08:59 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID: <0f0601cc959c$ab6324e0$02296ea0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear Frank
> 
>  
> 
> My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total
> weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will
> need to get over that. 
> 
>  
> 
> I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific meaning.
> I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is
> 'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything.
> 
>  
> 
> It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when the
> sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed'
> portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the
> fuel, not a property of the fuel alone.
> 
>  
> 
> The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with internal
> definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never really
> know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically
> been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of 'fixed
> carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value of
> anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, not
> of part of the fuel.
> 
>  
> 
> There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that
> involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation.
> For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the fuel's
> heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing'
> increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in
> energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and calculate
> out the ash.  Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you
> have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also
> investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many
> people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Crispin
> 
>  
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/17b76850/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:13 -0500
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,
> 	Issue 17
> Message-ID: <008f01cc95a2$7009e900$501dbb00$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Crispin, Frank,
> 
>  
> 
> Apart from fraud, it is nice to have a general indication of how much of the
> fuel will convert to a gas before burning and how much would, in theory,
> remain as char. IN practice you oxidize part of he "fixed" carbon as well. 
> 
>  
> 
> In carbonization the volatile carbon is a useful indicator of the extent of
> carbonization. We look for volatile carbon to be less than 20% for most
> applications. That does not mean that all biochar needs to be less than 20%
> volatile carbon. Other measures of labile carbon would be helpful. 
> 
>  
> 
> For biochar applications it would be useful to know how much of the carbon
> is likely to be consumed by organisms and will thereby have a demand on
> nitrogen or other nutrients. I have assumes that is the volatile fraction.
> How much char C do you include in calculating a C:N ration for composting,
> for example?  If you intend to deliver a char to a uses that will supply
> it's own N how much to you have to add? How much char from stoves can you
> estimate will have a demand on plant nutrients if used as biochar? 
> 
>  
> 
> Tom
> 
>  
> 
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:09 PM
> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue
> 17
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Frank
> 
>  
> 
> My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total
> weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will
> need to get over that. 
> 
>  
> 
> I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific meaning.
> I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is
> 'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything.
> 
>  
> 
> It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when the
> sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed'
> portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the
> fuel, not a property of the fuel alone.
> 
>  
> 
> The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with internal
> definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never really
> know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically
> been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of 'fixed
> carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value of
> anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, not
> of part of the fuel.
> 
>  
> 
> There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that
> involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation.
> For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the fuel's
> heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing'
> increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in
> energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and calculate
> out the ash.  Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you
> have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also
> investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many
> people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Crispin
> 
>  
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/379444d6/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 52
> **************************************



More information about the Stoves mailing list