[Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw dataof cookstove tests.

[Jock Gill]

Kevin,

If one type of device [technology] requires champagne fuel, stick wood for example, but another device can use 'waste', should that not be accounted for?  If one device type promotes deforestation by consuming stick wood, but another technology reduces the risk of deforestation, should that not be in the plus column for the technology that reduces the risks of deforestation?

Using twice a much champagne fuel is, of course, a real problem.  But using twice as much previously discarded waste as feedstock is a real plus. ESP. If we factor in the economic value of increased crops - which pure combustion devices can not offer.

Not all units on your list use the same fuels or are limited to a narrow range of fuels.  How do we Give credit to TLUDs that can use a wide range of fuels, not just stick wood, which is a prime example of a champaign fuel?

Do we not have to use systems thinking approaches that take ALL of the factors in the whole system into consideration, not merely some arbitrarily selected sub-set?

It is not good science to arbitrarily select some sub-set of factors to tilt the outcome in favor of one particular technology.  Frankly, combustion got us into the mess we are in and is unlikely to get us  out.   Pyrolysis might help  get us out of the environmental mess we are in,  but this is not a certainty.

Happy Earth Day!

Curious.

Jock Gill
P.O. Box 3
Peacham,  VT 05862

Cell: (617) 449-8111

:> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Dear Ron
>  
> 1: Would you agree with the following statements?
> a: A "Stove" is a device with the primary purpose of heating and/or cooking.
> b: A "Retort" is a device with the primary purpose of producing char and pyrolysis gases
> c: A "Gasifier" is a device with the primary purpose of converting a solid fuel into a fuel gas.
> d: A "Mixed Function system" (such as a TLUD) is a device that provides both a heating and/or cooking function plus residual char.
>  
> 2: If you agree with those basic definitions, would you not agree that a device attempting to do "2 jobs in one" cannot do either job as efficiently or effectively as if the device was designed to do "one job the best?"
>  
> 3: Would you agree that the Customer who buys the "device" should have the benefit of "true science based  tests" that are repeatable by others?
>  
> 4: Would you agree that the Customer is the one who decided whether or not he should purchase a "mixed feature device" that produces char, but requires more fuel input, in contrast to a Stove that requires less fuel input for the same cooking and/or heating effect?
>  
> 5: Would you agree that the testing protocols for the above "devices" should be such that the Customer should be able to compare the various devices and then select the "device" that best meets his wishes?
>  
> Kevin Chisholm
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130422/7dab3a98/attachment.html>