[Stoves] Principles - draft from 2011

[Jonathan P Gill]

Paul, 

Point taken. My goal is to promote the idea of the value of using biomass other than wood as stove fuel. I see this as a strong point of pyrolytic stoves and a dis-advantage of simple combustion stoves.   As many have pointed out, this advantage is generally greatly under-valued.  I believe that pyrolytic stoves, such as TLUDs, should get credit where credit is due, especially as this is a key point of differentiation between the two approaches.

Cheers,

Jock

Extract CO2 from the atmosphere!

On Apr 6, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Jock,
> 
> Thank you for your observations.   Useful for discussion and especially for those getting started, but many seemed a bit dogmatic, that is, too black and white.   Guidance is good; prescription is not so good.
> 
> I do take exception with your Item number 2 which says:
> 
>> 2. Basic design must be able to be tuned for multi-fuel capability - no dependencies on
>> a single type of feedstock. Jatropha beans, cherry pits, nut shells, rice hulls, and
>> densified grass are examples of preferred feed stocks with few, if any, other uses. Each
>> feedstock type is likely to require a specific tuning of the system.
> 
> From my experiences and observations, the "specific tuning" needed is basically different stoves for different fuels, especially for the specialty (non-wood) feedstocks that you name:  Jatropha beans, cherry pits, nut shells, rice hulls, and
> densified grass.  
> 
> ESPECIALLY in places where those feedstocks are sufficiently abundant, in those places a special stove could be the only one needed, and therefore not needing to have multi-fuel capabilities.  
> 
> We should encourage the stove developers to master one specific fuel very well, and present that stove for evaluation.   And not divert to trying to make that stove also use other fuels.   
> 
> Basically, stove developers should NOT be discouraged when people say "but will it also burn fuel X, or Y or Z."   Do not worry, there are so many places in the world with (you name the specific       fuel) that there could be substantial markets in those locations to assure success of a stove for that specific fuel.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
> On 4/6/2013 10:27 AM, Jock Gill wrote:
>> Perhaps these will be of interest to those working on "standards".  There is far more to stoves than simple "performance" characteristics.  In the best of all possible worlds, stoves are able to contribute much more than clean stack gasses.  It would be desirable to look at the full spectrum of potential benefits when evaluating stoves. In the developed economies at least, the saying is that "benefits sell".  The implication is that features are not as powerful a motivations for adoption.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please remember that this is only a first draft.  I did send it to the State Department in 2011,  but they never replied.  
>> 
>> I look forward to your thoughts.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jock 
>> 
>> Jock Gill
>> P.O. Box 3
>> Peacham,  VT 05862
>> 
>> Cell: (617) 449-8111
>> 
>> :> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130406/65030826/attachment.html>