[Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming

[Art Donnelly]

Hi all,
It has taken the loss of Josh Kerns from this list to get me to write this.
I tremendously value the contributions that people like he, Paul Oliver and
Ron Larson bring to the list. I want to 100% clear that I agree with them.
In our age Mankind acts on the earth as a force of nature. You can not be
over 50, sentiment and in possession of both your eyes and memory and deny
it. However nothing is more frightening to most of us than change. Denial
is the most common reaction.
This truth forces some of us who share some deeply held beliefs to disagree
on others.

However, Tom, Erin and Andrew have each reminded us  that this list serves
a specific and important function. It is a forum for the advancement of
improved stove design and their adoption. It attracts people from many
countries, many beliefs and many backgrounds. If it is going to continue,
it has to be an ecumenical space, where people who disagree on issues which
may be impacted by the development cleaner burning stoves can share and
cooperate on that development. I may differ with Crispin over any number of
his beliefs, but I have still learned a great deal from him.

If we can not restrain ourselves and focus on the stated reason "to be" for
this forum, I will soon be following Josh, which I have to note is a trend.

paz


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM,
<stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org>wrote:

> 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: Excess air (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    2. Re: Excess air (Philip Lloyd)
>    3. Re: Excess air (Andrew Heggie)
>    4. Re: Excess air (Dean Still)
>    5. Re: Excess air (rongretlarson at comcast.net)
>    6. Re: Excess air (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    7. Re: Excess air (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    8. Re: Excess air (rongretlarson at comcast.net)
>    9. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming (Paul Olivier)
>   10. Re: thank you, RWL (revjcsd at juno.com)
>   11. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
>       (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>   12. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming (Josh Kearns)
>   13. Re: thank you, RWL (Ronal W. Larson)
>   14. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
>       (Ronal W. Larson)
>   15. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming (Paul Olivier)
>   16. Re: Role of secondary air on wood burning and charcoal    stoves
>       (Sarbagya R. Tuladhar)
>   17. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming (Jock Gill)
>   18. Re: thank you, RWL (Tom Miles)
>   19. Re: Role of secondary air on wood burning and charcoal    stoves
>       (Ronal W. Larson)
>   20. Re: Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
>       (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>   21. Re: Role of secondary air on wood burning and charcoal stoves
>       (Andrew C. Parker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:07:05 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID: <01e801ce9e99$40afc8d0$c20f5a70$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Andrew
>
>
>
> I will keep it short so you can access it.
>
>
>
> >I was only addressing the definition
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> >What you are are seeing is vagaries of the way measuring equipment makes
> assumptions about how the sensor reacts to the exhaust species and produces
> an output.
>
>
>
> That is what we assumed right from the start and it turned out not to be
> the
> case. I hoped it was an instrument issue. It is a formula issue.
>
>
>
> So I researched how that formula is supposed to work and does work, but not
> for rocket engines. If not for rocket engines, why would it work for rocket
> stoves?  :)
>
>
>
> So the real-real answer is that EA represents available O2 as if it were
> air. No problem that is the definition. But to get the right answer it has
> to be a % of the O2 actually required at the time.
>
>
>
> What is required at the time changes with the chemistry at the time. That
> chemistry can be directly measured using gas analysers.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, for the same level of O2 in the stack, the EA is different
> under different chemical conditions. Complex pyrolysing conditions provoke
> all sorts of strange chemistry so the chemically balanced approach is
> required, actually. For a given device, the best combustion tends to take
> place under a certain EA level, but this varies (a lot) between devices.
> The
> BLDD6 coal stove works best with 30% EA which is a very low value and
> really
> surprised me. I would have guessed that was not possible.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130821/6a36082b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:04:02 +0200
> From: "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> To: "'Ronal W. Larson'" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>,    "'Discussion of
>         biomass cooking stoves'" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID: <025401ce9ea9$9592a380$c0b7ea80$@co.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks, Ron
>
>
>
> In essence I think it comes down to what you are trying to do.  Do you want
> a crude measure of stove performance or an accurate one?  In running a
> really big stove (and I'm thinking of one that burns around 90kg of fuel
> per
> second) it is critically important to get the combustion optimal, with a
> balance between CO going up the stack, C leaving in the ash and minimal
> N2/Ar needing unnecessary heating. You have to get the excess air just
> right.  You play around, altering it about 0.1% each time, until you get it
> right for the stove and the fuel.  Near the optimum, 0.1% shift in the
> excess air can cost you 100g of carbon per second, or 0.3% in efficiency as
> you get excess nitrogen - that's how closely you have to monitor the excess
> air.  So if the big stovers can use such a measure, why can't we?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net]
> Sent: 21 August 2013 06:16
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Philip Lloyd
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
>
>
> Prof.Lloyd:
>
>
>
>    I agree that combustion efficiency is hugely important.  I would love to
> see it reported separately  (and could be theoretically, I think as CO is
> already measured and reported).
>
>    I would love to see excess air reported (and I think that possible
> also).
>
>
>    I would love to see more on the oxygen content of various woods (air to
> fuel ratios for combustion are given as 4-7. If you are making char, the
> range is probably wider, as lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose all have
> rather different O2 content, and contribute differently to char.
>
>    Why not separately also report on the H2 content of all the fuels, and
> it
> also has a small content in chars.  Then we can move to sulfur.
>
>    Why not report the lost radiant energy?
>
>
>
>    If you had all this in an expanded WBT procedure  (with all Crispin and
> you want about each and every fuel), what would the average user of Jim
> Jetter's test do differently than they are now doing?  I just continue to
> see these as useful academic exercises that don't advance stove
> development.
>
>
>
>   I nit pick below a  bit more.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:06 AM, "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear List
>
> In one of his responses to Crispin, Ron said "RWL:  In summary, I think you
> are raising issues that are hopelessly complicated for the world of stove
> testing and comparisons.  I see insufficient reason so far to explore your
> metric words "possible" and "to check" and "Obviously".   I hope you will
> try again to convince this list (with citations), if you disagree."
>
> I think stove testing needs to be comparable between both stoves and fuels.
>
>      [RWL:  I think this is now being done.  Each fuel seems to have enough
> known about it and it is reported.  The unused CO is reported.   I don't
> know this for sure,  but think that the same stove with different fuels
> gives very comparable results - and especially in a tier-ranking sense.
> (Anyone have data on this last point?)
>
>
>
>
>
> What Crispin has done is bring standard combustion theory to bear on the
> question so as to allow this.
>
>      [RWL:  Jetter's work is about improving the performance via
> measurement.  Details about each fuel doesn't seem as important as
> reporting
> the fuel combustion efficiency - which is (sort of) in the data.  (meaning
> high CO means low combustion efficiency).
>
>     I am not sure that any important aspect of combustion theory is
> missing.
> If so - exactly what?
>
>
>
>
>
> I need, for instance, to be able to compare a
> single stove burning either wood or charcoal.
>
>     [RWL:  I hope not too often. Rarely will the same stove be the right
> thing to use for both fuels.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have to be able to take the
> oxygen present in the cellulose and other constituents of the wood into
> account in calculating the excess air, because it contributes to the
> combustion, whereas with charcoal there is essentially no oxygen present in
> the fuel.
>
>    [RWL:  Maybe this is important for something you are doing, but why
> impose this on all stove testing?  I think we should concentrate first on
> getting excess air measured accurately, not on the percentage coming from
> the fuel (which can mostly be determined from the literature - no need I
> see
> to encumber each test with that level of detail).  The operation and
> performance of charcoal-making and charcoal-using stoves is so different
> (even ignoring how the char in a char-using stove was produced), that I
> think the O2 content of the fuel is in the noise.  Can you give a counter
> example?
>
>
>
>
>
> The difference is real, measurable, and has an impact on the
> efficiency of combustion.
>
>    [RWL:  Yes to all - but I don't think it needed as a new adjunct to the
> WBT.  On the best stoves  (tiny CO emitted) , the information will change
> the second or third significant efficiency digit, and I am still worried
> about the first digit.
>
>
>
>
> I, for one, am convinced.
>
>     [RWL:  I will be when I see a written justification for holding up
> progress on getting an agreed ISO standard.   How about helping me get char
> production ( a first digit issue) as an accepted part of the standard?
>
>
>
>    Need to repeat, some of the above might have been covered in yesterday's
> webinar which had  to be cancelled due to an equipment glitch.   Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130821/2ce155f7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:41:00 +0100
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAPSaZeYqhaWnGHFHTCbUbHc5pkirxaAPbC8AwNZxpmnQN2LBjw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 21 August 2013 19:07, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Interestingly, for the same level of O2 in the stack, the EA is different
> > under different chemical conditions. Complex pyrolysing conditions
> provoke
> > all sorts of strange chemistry so the chemically balanced approach is
> > required, actually. For a given device, the best combustion tends to take
> > place under a certain EA level, but this varies (a lot) between devices.
> The
> > BLDD6 coal stove works best with 30% EA which is a very low value and
> really
> > surprised me. I would have guessed that was not possible.
>
> OK we're talking at slightly cross purposes. I think where you are
> coming from is to do more with the batch nature of most cook stoves.
>
> With a premixed fuel:air system, like a gas flame, the reactions are
> for all intents and purposes instantaneous, the oxygen disociates in
> the flame and immediately grabs a couple of  hydrogen and then soon
> after another oxygen reacts with the left over carbon.
>
> When you burn wood the sequence of necessary events is longer and
> unle,s the wood is very small, like sawdust in a cyclonic burner, the
> processes all overlap. So a stick may be completely burning at its
> surface whilst the middle is heating up. As wood heats up and
> pyrolyses it evolves an offgas whose constituents change, early
> species emitted are things like acetic acid and this has a high oxygen
> content, later the major constituents are things like carbon monoxide,
> hydrogen and methane.At the end when just char is burning there is no
> contribution of oxygen from the fuel in species in the exhaust.
> Clearly these changes in offgas require differeing amounts of oxygen
> to burn out, so stoichiometric air changes with time.
>
> The thing about burning coal is that it contains barely any oxygen and
> hence this does not have any contribution to to the ultimate analysis
> of the exhaust.
>
> In fact burning coal with very little excess air is necessary because
> coal burns hotter than wood and hot enough to form nitrogen oxides if
> oxygen is present. This is why air supply is cascaded into the
> reaction after cooling the initial combustion to keep temperatures
> below the point at which NOx would form (1500C??). This quenching is
> the very thing we wish to avoid with a flame in a cook stove because
> we need to maintain high flame temperature to allow carbon particles
> to burn out.
>
> So yes stoichiometric air does vary as wood burns and excess air
> mirrors this but it is not reasonable to mix this up with the fact
> that oxygen from combustion air and from the fuel is conserved in the
> exhaust gases.
>
> AJH
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:17:54 -0700
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+tShZs4oyonRm6FD4i5EV0aUZYkGcvbXbxYHZ-dE9MMAhMU5g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi All,
>
> Measuring the PM out of the stack is very important as well (as well as
> CO/CO2) and it has been noted by researchers like Kirk Smith, in his
> textbook, that added air can assist in lowering PM. Getting almost no CO
> and almost no PM, in my limited experience, does require quite a lot of
> excess air in open fire type combustion chamber stoves, Rocket stoves and
> TLUDs.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>
> >  Thanks, Ron****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > In essence I think it comes down to what you are trying to do.  Do you
> > want a crude measure of stove performance or an accurate one?  In
> running a
> > really big stove (and I?m thinking of one that burns around 90kg of fuel
> > per second) it is critically important to get the combustion optimal,
> with
> > a balance between CO going up the stack, C leaving in the ash and
> minimal N
> > 2/Ar needing unnecessary heating. You have to get the excess air just
> > right.  You play around, altering it about 0.1% each time, until you get
> it
> > right for the stove and the fuel.  Near the optimum, 0.1% shift in the
> > excess air can cost you 100g of carbon per second, or 0.3% in efficiency
> as
> > you get excess nitrogen ? that?s how closely you have to monitor the
> excess
> > air.  So if the big stovers can use such a measure, why can?t we?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Kind regards****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Philip****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net]
> > *Sent:* 21 August 2013 06:16
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Philip Lloyd
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Excess air****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Prof.Lloyd:****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> >    I agree that combustion efficiency is hugely important.  I would love
> > to see it reported separately  (and could be theoretically, I think as CO
> > is already measured and reported). ****
> >
> >    I would love to see excess air reported (and I think that possible
> > also).  ****
> >
> >    I would love to see more on the oxygen content of various woods (air
> to
> > fuel ratios for combustion are given as 4-7. If you are making char, the
> > range is probably wider, as lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose all have
> > rather different O2 content, and contribute differently to char.  ****
> >
> >    Why not separately also report on the H2 content of all the fuels, and
> > it also has a small content in chars.  Then we can move to sulfur.****
> >
> >    Why not report the lost radiant energy?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> >    If you had all this in an expanded WBT procedure  (with all Crispin
> and
> > you want about each and every fuel), what would the average user of Jim
> > Jetter's test do differently than they are now doing?  I just continue to
> > see these as useful academic exercises that don't advance stove
> development.
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> >   I nit pick below a  bit more.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:06 AM, "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> wrote:***
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Dear List
> >
> > In one of his responses to Crispin, Ron said "RWL:  In summary, I think
> you
> > are raising issues that are hopelessly complicated for the world of stove
> > testing and comparisons.  I see insufficient reason so far to explore
> your
> > metric words "possible" and "to check" and "Obviously".   I hope you will
> > try again to convince this list (with citations), if you disagree."
> >
> > I think stove testing needs to be comparable between both stoves and
> fuels.
> > ****
> >
> >      *[RWL:  I think this is now being done.  Each fuel seems to have
> > enough known about it and it is reported.  The unused CO is reported.   I
> > don't know this for sure,  but think that the same stove with different
> > fuels gives very comparable results - and especially in a tier-ranking
> > sense.  (Anyone have data on this last point?)*****
> >
> > *
> >
> > *****
> >
> > What Crispin has done is bring standard combustion theory to bear on the
> > question so as to allow this. ****
> >
> >      *[RWL:  Jetter's work is about improving the performance via
> > measurement.  Details about each fuel doesn't seem as important as
> > reporting the fuel combustion efficiency - which is (sort of) in the
> data.
> >  (meaning high CO means low combustion efficiency).*****
> >
> > *    I am not sure that any important aspect of combustion theory is
> > missing.  If so - exactly what?*****
> >
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > I need, for instance, to be able to compare a
> > single stove burning either wood or charcoal.  ****
> >
> >     *[RWL:  I hope not too often. Rarely will the same stove be the right
> > thing to use for both fuels.*****
> >
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > I have to be able to take the
> > oxygen present in the cellulose and other constituents of the wood into
> > account in calculating the excess air, because it contributes to the
> > combustion, whereas with charcoal there is essentially no oxygen present
> in
> > the fuel.  ****
> >
> >    *[RWL:  Maybe this is important for something you are doing, but why
> > impose this on all stove testing?  I think we should concentrate first on
> > getting excess air measured accurately, not on the percentage coming from
> > the fuel (which can mostly be determined from the literature - no need I
> > see to encumber each test with that level of detail).  The operation and
> > performance of charcoal-making and charcoal-using stoves is so different
> > (even ignoring how the char in a char-using stove was produced), that I
> > think the O2 content of the fuel is in the noise.  Can you give a counter
> > example?*****
> >
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > The difference is real, measurable, and has an impact on the
> > efficiency of combustion.****
> >
> >    *[RWL:  Yes to all - but I don't think it needed as a new adjunct to
> > the WBT.  On the best stoves  (tiny CO emitted) , the information will
> > change the second or third significant efficiency digit, and I am still
> > worried about the first digit.*
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> > I, for one, am convinced.****
> >
> >     *[RWL:  I will be when I see a written justification for holding up
> > progress on getting an agreed ISO standard.   How about helping me get
> > char production ( a first digit issue) as an accepted part of the
> standard?
> > *****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > *   Need to repeat, some of the above might have been covered in
> > yesterday's webinar which had  to be cancelled due to an equipment
> glitch.
> >   Ron*****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20130821/6b102ca0/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 904625119.2374955.1377120730444.JavaMail.root at sz0133a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Philip:
>
> You fail to make your case, in my opinion, when you call 90 kg fuel per
> second a "stove". With a typical real stove doing maybe 0.9 kg per hour, we
> are talking a ratio of 3600*100 - the stove population of a small city -
> with a great variation, but none operating like the uniform fuel and air
> flows of any coal -fired operation. I compare your analogy of "operating" a
> kayak or a battleship. We don't apply anywhere near the same rules with 5
> and 6 orers of magnitude.
>
> Maybe you can convince me with something one or two orders of magnitude
> apart.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> To: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>, "Discussion of biomass
> cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:04:02 PM
> Subject: RE: [Stoves] Excess air
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Ron
>
>
>
> In essence I think it comes down to what you are trying to do. Do you want
> a crude measure of stove performance or an accurate one? In running a
> really big stove (and I?m thinking of one that burns around 90kg of fuel
> per second) it is critically important to get the combustion optimal, with
> a balance between CO going up the stack, C leaving in the ash and minimal N
> 2 /Ar needing unnecessary heating. You have to get the excess air just
> right. You play around, altering it about 0.1% each time, until you get it
> right for the stove and the fuel. Near the optimum, 0.1% shift in the
> excess air can cost you 100g of carbon per second, or 0.3% in efficiency as
> you get excess nitrogen ? that?s how closely you have to monitor the excess
> air. So if the big stovers can use such a measure, why can?t we?
>
> [RWL: Hopefully the answer is above.].
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net]
> Sent: 21 August 2013 06:16
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Philip Lloyd
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
>
>
> Prof.Lloyd:
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that combustion efficiency is hugely important. I would love to
> see it reported separately (and could be theoretically, I think as CO is
> already measured and reported).
>
>
> I would love to see excess air reported (and I think that possible also).
>
>
> I would love to see more on the oxygen content of various woods (air to
> fuel ratios for combustion are given as 4-7. If you are making char, the
> range is probably wider, as lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose all have
> rather different O2 content, and contribute differently to char.
>
>
> Why not separately also report on the H2 content of all the fuels, and it
> also has a small content in chars. Then we can move to sulfur.
>
>
> Why not report the lost radiant energy?
>
>
>
>
>
> If you had all this in an expanded WBT procedure (with all Crispin and you
> want about each and every fuel), what would the average user of Jim
> Jetter's test do differently than they are now doing? I just continue to
> see these as useful academic exercises that don't advance stove development.
>
>
>
>
>
> I nit pick below a bit more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:06 AM, "Philip Lloyd" < plloyd at mweb.co.za > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear List
>
> In one of his responses to Crispin, Ron said "RWL: In summary, I think you
> are raising issues that are hopelessly complicated for the world of stove
> testing and comparisons. I see insufficient reason so far to explore your
> metric words "possible" and "to check" and "Obviously". I hope you will
> try again to convince this list (with citations), if you disagree."
>
> I think stove testing needs to be comparable between both stoves and fuels.
>
> [RWL: I think this is now being done. Each fuel seems to have enough known
> about it and it is reported. The unused CO is reported. I don't know this
> for sure, but think that the same stove with different fuels gives very
> comparable results - and especially in a tier-ranking sense. (Anyone have
> data on this last point?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What Crispin has done is bring standard combustion theory to bear on the
> question so as to allow this.
>
>
> [RWL: Jetter's work is about improving the performance via measurement.
> Details about each fuel doesn't seem as important as reporting the fuel
> combustion efficiency - which is (sort of) in the data. (meaning high CO
> means low combustion efficiency).
>
>
> I am not sure that any important aspect of combustion theory is missing.
> If so - exactly what?
>
>
>
>
>
> I need, for instance, to be able to compare a
> single stove burning either wood or charcoal.
>
>
> [RWL: I hope not too often. Rarely will the same stove be the right thing
> to use for both fuels.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have to be able to take the
> oxygen present in the cellulose and other constituents of the wood into
> account in calculating the excess air, because it contributes to the
> combustion, whereas with charcoal there is essentially no oxygen present in
> the fuel.
>
>
> [RWL: Maybe this is important for something you are doing, but why impose
> this on all stove testing? I think we should concentrate first on getting
> excess air measured accurately, not on the percentage coming from the fuel
> (which can mostly be determined from the literature - no need I see to
> encumber each test with that level of detail). The operation and
> performance of charcoal-making and charcoal-using stoves is so different
> (even ignoring how the char in a char-using stove was produced), that I
> think the O2 content of the fuel is in the noise. Can you give a counter
> example?
>
>
>
>
>
> The difference is real, measurable, and has an impact on the
> efficiency of combustion.
>
> [RWL: Yes to all - but I don't think it needed as a new adjunct to the
> WBT. On the best stoves (tiny CO emitted) , the information will change the
> second or third significant efficiency digit, and I am still worried about
> the first digit.
>
>
>
>
> I, for one, am convinced.
>
> [RWL: I will be when I see a written justification for holding up progress
> on getting an agreed ISO standard. How about helping me get char production
> ( a first digit issue) as an accepted part of the standard?
>
>
>
>
>
> Need to repeat, some of the above might have been covered in yesterday's
> webinar which had to be cancelled due to an equipment glitch. Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130821/fa510764/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:33:06 +0000
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>
> <1686340382-1377120781-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1147872996- at b27.c10.bise6.blackberry
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Dear Andrew
>
> I followed everything until the end. The last paragraph.
>
> The EA calculation formula purports to show the EA level. It only does
> this if it considers all the gases in the stack.
>
> The regular formula only works within certain limits. I didn't check to
> see the variation across conditions from reality - I don't care. I just use
> the balanced method. The best you can do is to use what gases you have. If
> the instruments drift, it automatically corrects for some of it because we
> are removing a constant and replacing it with a sum of measured values.
> That is more accurate.
>
> Re coal and Oxygen, there is not so much in the coal but wet coal fires
> can make O2 during ignition.
>
> We found this with lignite as a fuel - it is 20-33% moisture. We also get
> high H2 as well in the same conditions which is usually a cold stove,
> wood-ignited, wet early fire with high EA.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> From BB9900
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com>
> Sender: "Stoves" <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:41:00
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
> On 21 August 2013 19:07, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Interestingly, for the same level of O2 in the stack, the EA is different
> > under different chemical conditions. Complex pyrolysing conditions
> provoke
> > all sorts of strange chemistry so the chemically balanced approach is
> > required, actually. For a given device, the best combustion tends to take
> > place under a certain EA level, but this varies (a lot) between devices.
> The
> > BLDD6 coal stove works best with 30% EA which is a very low value and
> really
> > surprised me. I would have guessed that was not possible.
>
> OK we're talking at slightly cross purposes. I think where you are
> coming from is to do more with the batch nature of most cook stoves.
>
> With a premixed fuel:air system, like a gas flame, the reactions are
> for all intents and purposes instantaneous, the oxygen disociates in
> the flame and immediately grabs a couple of  hydrogen and then soon
> after another oxygen reacts with the left over carbon.
>
> When you burn wood the sequence of necessary events is longer and
> unle,s the wood is very small, like sawdust in a cyclonic burner, the
> processes all overlap. So a stick may be completely burning at its
> surface whilst the middle is heating up. As wood heats up and
> pyrolyses it evolves an offgas whose constituents change, early
> species emitted are things like acetic acid and this has a high oxygen
> content, later the major constituents are things like carbon monoxide,
> hydrogen and methane.At the end when just char is burning there is no
> contribution of oxygen from the fuel in species in the exhaust.
> Clearly these changes in offgas require differeing amounts of oxygen
> to burn out, so stoichiometric air changes with time.
>
> The thing about burning coal is that it contains barely any oxygen and
> hence this does not have any contribution to to the ultimate analysis
> of the exhaust.
>
> In fact burning coal with very little excess air is necessary because
> coal burns hotter than wood and hot enough to form nitrogen oxides if
> oxygen is present. This is why air supply is cascaded into the
> reaction after cooling the initial combustion to keep temperatures
> below the point at which NOx would form (1500C??). This quenching is
> the very thing we wish to avoid with a flame in a cook stove because
> we need to maintain high flame temperature to allow carbon particles
> to burn out.
>
> So yes stoichiometric air does vary as wood burns and excess air
> mirrors this but it is not reasonable to mix this up with the fact
> that oxygen from combustion air and from the fuel is conserved in the
> exhaust gases.
>
> AJH
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:38:07 +0000
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>
> <1067302402-1377121082-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1276293923- at b27.c10.bise6.blackberry
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Dear Ron
>
> It is not about scale, it is about wrong answers. I gave real life
> examples of what happens when conditions are not what a formula-writer
> expects.
>
> EA is a calculated value. If the calculation is incorrect then there is a
> systematic error in the reported value which would mislead the tester.
>
> So we should use the correct formula.
>
> That's all.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> From BB9900
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> Sender: "Stoves" <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:32:10
> To: Philip Lloyd<plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:28:03 +0000 (UTC)
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: crispinpigott at gmail.com,    Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 1481857239.2376599.1377124083911.JavaMail.root at sz0133a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Crispin and list: See below
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:38:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
> Dear Ron
>
> It is not about scale, it is about wrong answers. I gave real life
> examples of what happens when conditions are not what a formula-writer
> expects.
> [RWL: Can you rem ind where th ose "real-life examples" are?
>
> EA is a calculated value. If the calculation is incorrect then there is a
> systematic error in the reported value which would mislead the tester.
> [RWL: In my world EA is much more a measured value. Who do you know in the
> stove world who has any idea what the airflow i s in th eir most detailed
> measu rements? I didn't see i t at the stove camp - calculated o r
> measured. I do know measured air flow is part of the few doctoral
> dissertations I have seen in this area.
>
> So we should use the correct formula.
> [RWL: I ag ree that one can get more deta iled in presenting measured
> combust ion eff ic ien cy. Requiring a prior computat i on on the fuel
> characteristics that go into an EA pred ict ion and then compar ison st ill
> seems like overkill - partly for scale reasons. But I will re-look at what
> you wrote if you tell me where to look. But I repeat, if you gave me the
> most per fect computat ion of an EA for any stove, I don't know how to use
> that data for improving the stove, except in a very general way. Too many
> interacti ons of too many parameters. I'm in favor of trusting measured
> values. ]
> That's all.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> >From BB9900
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> Sender: "Stoves" <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:32:10
> To: Philip Lloyd<plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Excess air
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130821/a0caf496/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:29:01 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAOreFvbmB4Z9TmvuPpj+kany3Ht9hNpv-vPPwAJadhvFkS+1KQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Andrew,
>
> The GACC values stoves that achieve measurable health and/or environmental
> goals, and under environmental goals, it mentions the reduction in
> greenhouse gas emissions. I would suppose that there is no one on this list
> who would say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
>
> Let us suppose that someone went to the doctor, and the doctor said that
> this person had a 95% chance of dying from cancer within a certain period
> of time if he does not undergo chemotherapy and other medical treatment.
> Does this person simply ignore what the doctor says and refuses any kind of
> medical intervention in the hope that he might situate in the 5% likelihood
> of not contracting cancer? If he is a sensible person, he will take
> immediate action.
>
> *The 2007 report found ?unequivocal? evidence of warming, but hedged a
> little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that
> human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger,
> saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal
> cause. *
>
> The fact that a topic is controversial does not make it off-topic. But
> people have to be civil in their discourse. Labeling the opinions of other
> as so much nonsense or as babble, is totally out of place.
>
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 20 Aug 2013 20:06, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew and list:
> > >
> > >    Maybe speaking for Andrew Heggie (list moderator),  I guess we need
> > to remind Paul O that his type of message today tends to get us off of
> > stove topics.
> > >
> >
> > Yes I do consider it offtopic and because it also leads to intemperate
> > arguments between the few main protagonists from both camps it does
> nothing
> > for the other subscribers. How many times must I request posters to stick
> > with stoves topics? AJH
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/4fcab2f9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:09:47 GMT
> From: "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] thank you, RWL
> Message-ID: <20130822.090947.10051.0 at webmail02.dca.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Most grateful!
>
> Am still digesting the material; almost as exciting as form criticism of
> biblical texts!
>
>
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:48 -0600
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:30:45 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID: <022e01ce9ed7$3b51fff0$b1f5ffd0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> "
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-
>
> ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#more-91971http://wattsupwit
>
> hthat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain
> -talking-point-show-them-this/> When somebody hits you with that new 'IPCC
> is 95% certain' talking point on global warming, show them this"
>
>
>
> Which of these two charts shows the global temperature from 1895 to 1946,
> caused entirely natural variation, and which chart shows the global
> temperature from 1957 to 2008 with the additional warming from
> anthropogenic
> CO2 above and beyond the natural variation?
>
>
>
>
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temp
> erature-compare.png>
>
>
>
> Can you spot the human influence?
>
>
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130821/f4008e9a/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 23544 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130821/f4008e9a/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:43:55 -0600
> From: Josh Kearns <yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+tERD5xTUkfSQZM8YJgfiLjwbuR_UimhF8x-mdkSsqa29osEQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> OK, I'm unsubscribing.
>
> JK
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ?When somebody hits you with that new ?IPCC is 95% certain? talking point
> > on global warming, show them this<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#more-91971http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/
> >
> > ?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Which of these two charts shows the global temperature from 1895 to 1946,
> > caused entirely natural variation, and which chart shows the global
> > temperature from 1957 to 2008 with the additional warming from
> > anthropogenic CO2 above and beyond the natural variation?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > [image: 1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare]<
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png
> >
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Can you spot the human influence?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Josh Kearns
> PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
> University of Colorado-Boulder
> Visiting Researcher, North Carolina State University
>
> Director of Science
> Aqueous Solutions
> www.aqsolutions.org
>
> Mobile: 720 989 3959
> Skype: joshkearns
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130821/5ab82e4f/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 23544 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130821/5ab82e4f/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:43:41 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: revjcsd at juno.com, Discussion of biomass
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] thank you, RWL
> Message-ID: <D667A67B-E308-4E33-9FE5-8851C5CDE9B2 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Fr. J (adding list back in)
>
> see below
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:03 AM, "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > #5 There are several other ways to make char while cooking besides the
> TLUD approach.
> >
> > Q5a: Other than by pyrolysis+gasification?
>      [RWL5a':  I wold drop the word "gasification" - used in technical
> circles to consume char.  All of the techniques for making any char
> can/should be called pyrolysis.   Those involving cooking are a subset of
> the total.  A good recent, comprehensive (free) overview of char-making
> techniques (only using the term "pyrolysis")  is at
> https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1107017.pdf
>
> > Q5b: Such as?
>      RWL5b':
>      a.  Visit www.worldstove.com.  Nat Mulcahy has developed a technique
> in which hot oxygen free gases are caused by pressure differences created
> using Venturi principles to travel downward through the fuel body.  After
> picking up some pyrolysis gases, they travel back to the burner after
> mixing with incoming "air"  (can't call it either primary or secondary).
>  Sometimes called "TLOD".   Nat uses the name "Lucia".
>      b.  One can make (I believe, none around yet, that I know of)
> cookstoves that would be called BLDD  (Bottom lit down draft).  I'm working
> on.
>      c.  Look up the name Rok Oblak.  He and list member Joshua Guinto
> have a nice design with a horizontal flow of air, called a Roket.  Mostly
> using holey briquettes, but not restricted to that.
>      d.  If you handle a rocket stove cleverly, (or even any three-stone
> cook fire), you can pull char out, before the gasification process consumes
> it.
>      e.  There is a stove called an Anila, which is of a retort character
> - not controllable.  A toroid shape with pyrolysis gases exiting the
> bottom, igniting and further heating the retort.
>      f.   There is an alternative pyrolysis approach called HTC -
> Hydrothermal Carbonization, where the "waste" product is water at about 230
> C.  Something like a pressure cooker.  Hard to imagine being a cooker, but
> who knows.
>      g.  There are probably others, that I hope others will add.
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> > #6 All these char producing stoves ... should not be called
> biochar-producers (i.e. replace "biochar" with "char.)
> >
> > Q6: All biochar is char, but not all char is biochar. Is that correct?
>      [RWL6':  Yes.
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> > #7  If that (stove-produced) char is itself combusted, that stove would
> in most cases be able to be called carbon neutral.
> >
> > Q7: If the resulting char from a biomass stove is not allowed to combust
> completely i.e., (not allowed to burn to ashes), what would that stove --
> in most cases -- be called?
>      [RWL7'    This is my option 5b'-d above.  Cooks all over the world do
> this regularly.  Quite a lot can be obtained if you watch what you are
> doing.
> >
> > carbon neutral?
>        [RWL7a':  Yes, possibly, if you did not place the char in the
> ground, or otherwise out of circulation.
> >
> > carbon positive?
>      [RWL7b':  Never (almost).  Positive mostly means a fossil fuel.  But
> if the fuel came from a region in serious biomass decline, this produced
> char might be carbon positive.  It is happening in some countries, and
> getting worse.  Avoiding this is a main reason for this list's existence.
> > carbon negative?
>      [RWL7c'  Only if the char is put away permanently (dumping in the
> ocean or a mine shaft qualifies).  But is called biochar if the char is
> placed in the ground.
> > none of the above?
>      [RWL7d':   Two out of the three are normally possible:  either carbon
> neutral or carbon negative:  not b' (carbon positive)
>
>    Do you have a new idea in mind?  Lots of expertise on this list to
> help.     Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> > From: "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] thank you, RWL
> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:09:47 GMT
> >
> > Most grateful!
> >
> > Am still digesting the material; almost as exciting as form criticism of
> biblical texts!
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/3dc26456/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:25:15 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID: <91F223B6-55BD-4101-8ED5-6FBD6ABB8DB5 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Josh  cc list:
>
>    I hope you will reconsider, given the source:  a self professed climate
> denier.   Below is why the claimed "identical" ordinates is so diabolically
> clever.  Don't show the ordinate scale.  Present only the cherry picked
> data.  Don't show the fact that there is a long-term trend  (and recently a
> half degree C in about 30 years?).  Don't show ocean temperatures.
>
>
>
> Apologies to Andrew H. for this continuation - but it would seem part of
> the rules of fair play.
>
> I don't want to lose Josh, who is maybe not understanding that his
> departure might have been premeditated (too many "believers" on this list?)
>
>  Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Josh Kearns <yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, I'm unsubscribing.
> >
> > JK
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ?When somebody hits you with that new ?IPCC is 95% certain? talking
> point on global warming, show them this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Which of these two charts shows the global temperature from 1895 to
> 1946, caused entirely natural variation, and which chart shows the global
> temperature from 1957 to 2008 with the additional warming from
> anthropogenic CO2 above and beyond the natural variation?
> >
> >
> >
> > <image001.jpg>
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you spot the human influence?
> >
> >
> >
> > 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Kearns
> > PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
> > University of Colorado-Boulder
> > Visiting Researcher, North Carolina State University
> >
> > Director of Science
> > Aqueous Solutions
> > www.aqsolutions.org
> >
> > Mobile: 720 989 3959
> > Skype: joshkearns
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20130822/726f802b/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at 4.05.00 AM.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 24252 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/726f802b/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:05:05 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID:
>         <CAOreFvabOPa2ciVQoXARKn8AARCP_Zc1uK=
> NpddKjZ8NJY1bVQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Ron and Josh,
>
> Take heart. An article appeared today in the New York Times entitled
> "Welcome to the Age of Denial." The author, Adam Frank, puts things in
> perspective quite nicely:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130822
> Frank is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of
> Rochester. The language that he uses is not the language of religion or
> politics. It's the language of science, and yet it is, at times, tough and
> brutal. Let me quote just a few lines:
>
> *Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists? PR
> playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate
> science that were decided scientifically decades ago.*..
>
> *North Carolina has banned state planners from using climate data in their
> projections of future sea levels...
>
> >From one end of their educational trajectory to the other, our society
> told
> these kids science was important. How confusing is it for them now, when
> scientists receive death threats for simply doing honest research on our
> planet?s climate history? *
>
> I encourage everyone to read the entire article. Let no one try to take the
> high road and say that climate issues should not influence the way we
> design stoves.
>
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> > Josh  cc list:
> >
> >    I hope you will reconsider, given the source:  a self professed
> climate
> > denier.   Below is why the claimed "identical" ordinates is so
> diabolically
> > clever.  Don't show the ordinate scale.  Present only the cherry picked
> > data.  Don't show the fact that there is a long-term trend  (and
> recently a
> > half degree C in about 30 years?).  Don't show ocean temperatures.
> >
> >
> > Apologies to Andrew H. for this continuation - but it would seem part of
> > the rules of fair play.
> >
> > I don't want to lose Josh, who is maybe not understanding that his
> > departure might have been premeditated (too many "believers" on this
> list?)
> >
> >
> >  Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Josh Kearns <yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm unsubscribing.
> >
> > JK
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ?When somebody hits you with that new ?IPCC is 95% certain? talking
> >> point on global warming, show them this<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#more-91971http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/
> >
> >> ?****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Which of these two charts shows the global temperature from 1895 to
> 1946,
> >> caused entirely natural variation, and which chart shows the global
> >> temperature from 1957 to 2008 with the additional warming from
> >> anthropogenic CO2 above and beyond the natural variation?****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> <image001.jpg><
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png
> >
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Can you spot the human influence?****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Kearns
> > PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
> > University of Colorado-Boulder
> > Visiting Researcher, North Carolina State University
> >
> > Director of Science
> > Aqueous Solutions
> > www.aqsolutions.org
> >
> > Mobile: 720 989 3959
> > Skype: joshkearns
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/7d5ee2eb/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at 4.05.00 AM.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 24252 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/7d5ee2eb/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:56:13 +0530
> From: "Sarbagya R. Tuladhar" <sarbagya007 at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Role of secondary air on wood burning and
>         charcoal        stoves
> Message-ID: <8E39D285-3EE2-4F9F-A336-D40E98448602 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I am basically looking at natural draft front loading continuous feeding
> wood stoves and natural draft charcoal stoves. The reason I am
> investigating these is that for a wood stove, having secondary air
> component "really" did impact on the CO and PM production. The two stoves
> similar in design had the same thermal efficiency but then differed a lot
> with the emissions. The secondary air supposedly used was via the exterior
> gap ( I am guessing similar to the Philips TLUD). However, I am not talking
> about the TLUDs here but just normal front feeding wood cookstoves.
>
> Heard from Crispin regarding the role of secondary air in charcoal
> cookstoves. So it is used to burn the evaporated volatiles and the CO to
> CO2. Designs of the Benin charcoal stove have a simple concept of having
> holes on the bottom of the outer body which allows air to flow through it
> and then this pre-heated air is exited out to the combustion chamber to aid
> in the combustion of the volatile unburnt gases. Does this feature work?
>
> Looking to hearing from you.
>
> Cheers
>
> Sarbagya
>
> On 21/08/2013, at 1:25 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
> > Sarbagya:
> >
> >    Can you narrow down the type of stoves you are looking at?  And why?
> >
> >    You seem to be talking of TLUDs, and when mentioning consuming char
> is that in a TLUD?
> >
> >    We have seen some nice designs with secondary being preheated with a
> central pipe, not the exterior gap you describe.
> >
> >    At least one stove developer (Kirk Harris) has argued for using that
> exterior space for added insulation.  A topic fairly easy to compare in the
> lab you appear to have available.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Sarbagya R. Tuladhar <sarbagya007 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi stovers,
> >>
> >> The debate on the role of secondary air both for natural draft and
> forced draft has been raging for quite some time now. Obtaining secondary
> air in pre-heated form has been the research area for me in the laboratory
> for the past few weeks. However, one conclusion I obtained was that
> secondary air if not pre-heated would have the tendency to put off the fire
> by blowing in cold air.
> >>
> >> Hence my question is:
> >>
> >> What is the role of secondary air for wood burning stoves ? Is there an
> optimum gap for the secondary air to travel between the jackets of the
> combustion chamber before ejecting out into the combustion chamber ? How
> does this effect the performance of the cookstove ? I know a few cookstoves
> which have secondary air concept included and which seemed to decrease the
> CO and PM up to some extent.
> >>
> >> What is the role of secondary air for charcoal burning stoves ? Quoting
> Crispin "Secondary air is necessary to burn charcoal in a low O2
> environment at a high temperature." How does this effect the performance of
> the charcoal cookstove?
> >>
> >> Waiting for the responses.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Sarbagya Tuladhar
> >> Pondicherry, INDIA
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20130822/221cfe32/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:19:57 -0400
> From: Jock Gill <jg45 at icloud.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID: <CD759A02-FACA-4632-87E0-965485FED656 at icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Paul,
>
> The interesting question is why do people feel obliged to deny the science
> of Climate Security / Insecurity?  Politics and "culture wars" play a huge
> part.  For example, if global climate disruption is a real threat, then
> governments will have an extremely important role in solving the problem.
>  To some, it is unacceptable for government to play any role in any
> solution.  For these people government has to be the problem and can never
> be allowed to be part of a solution.  Government must always be seen to be
> failing.  Hence the objections, for example, to government health Plans,
> even though we know from other countries they can work at lower costs with
> better results.
>
> On the political front, also consider the interesting role of the American
> "Dixiecrats" who were fundamentally opposed to government imposed civil
> liberties.  The descendants of the Dixiecrats are alive and well in
> Washington, DC and far too many state capitals.  The recent hard turn to
> the right in formally moderate North Carolina is a case in point.
>
> In short, people do not like to see their entrenched core values
> threatened with significant change.  The fossil fuel companies do not want
> to be told they cannot monetize 100% of their reserves.  Yet, if we want to
> mitigate Climate Insecurity,  we probably have to find ways to leave as
> much fossil carbon in the ground as we can.  Monetizing it all creates too
> great a risk of globsl climate disruption. This, however, is unacceptable
> to the likes of the Exxon and the Koch brothers etc.  They will fight it
> tooth and nail. As they have effectively "bought and paid for" far too many
> elected officials, I expect they will prevail for some time to come.  It
> will be hard to convert from an extraction model to a stewardship model.
>
> So, until we have policy, incentives and education promoting Climate
> Security, I expect very little to be done to creatively address the
> daunting challenges to Climate Security that we are facing.  As a result, I
> am not sanguine about the future my grandchildren will inherit from us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jock
>
> Jock Gill
> P.O. Box 3
> Peacham,  VT 05862
>
> Cell: (617) 449-8111
>
> :> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron and Josh,
> >
> > Take heart. An article appeared today in the New York Times entitled
> "Welcome to the Age of Denial." The author, Adam Frank, puts things in
> perspective quite nicely:
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130822
> > Frank is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of
> Rochester. The language that he uses is not the language of religion or
> politics. It's the language of science, and yet it is, at times, tough and
> brutal. Let me quote just a few lines:
> >
> > Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists? PR
> playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate
> science that were decided scientifically decades ago...
> >
> > North Carolina has banned state planners from using climate data in
> their projections of future sea levels...
> >
> > From one end of their educational trajectory to the other, our society
> told these kids science was important. How confusing is it for them now,
> when scientists receive death threats for simply doing honest research on
> our planet?s climate history?
> >
> > I encourage everyone to read the entire article. Let no one try to take
> the high road and say that climate issues should not influence the way we
> design stoves.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Paul
> >>
> >>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/80124081/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:34:44 -0700
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,      <revjcsd at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] thank you, RWL
> Message-ID: <00a401ce9f44$bf13ee30$3d3bca90$@trmiles.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >Q5a: Other than by pyrolysis+gasification?
>
> >     [RWL5a':  I wold drop the word "gasification" - used in technical
> circles to consume char.  All of the techniques for making any char
> can/should be called >pyrolysis.   Those involving cooking are a subset of
> the total.  A good recent, comprehensive (free) overview of char-making
> techniques (only using the term >"pyrolysis")  is at
>
> >https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1107017.pdf
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> We don't need to redefine processes or devices.
>
>
>
> "Gasification" is NOT used in technical circles to "consume all char".
> Although the main purpose of a gasifier , including TLUD gasifiers, is to
> make gas all gasifiers make char.  All of the techniques for making char
> include pyrolysis in some form but all processes that can be used to make
> char - pyrolysis, gasification , combustion - are not all pyrolysis.
>
>
> Tom
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/0557fb7d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:16:41 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,      sarbagya007 at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Role of secondary air on wood burning and
>         charcoal        stoves
> Message-ID: <C59C80D2-14CB-4A98-BF61-75DF18EC2A54 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Sarbagya and iist
>
>    I am mainly going to pass, as I have only been involved with
> char-making stoves, which of course has everything to do with secondary air
> (and almost no-one controlling it - only allowing for it).
>
>    As near as I can tell, the rocket stove dimensions (which I don't even
> know where to find) make no effort to supply secondary air, except for
> encouraging a grate.   Some of the air flowing above and below the grate
> has a primary air function (pyrolyzing), some a secondary air function
> (combusting pyrolysis gases) and much a gasifying function  (consuming the
> char).   Maybe there is a fourth role for the air.   Some for sure has to
> be present as excess air, since we are talking random encounters;  we will
> miss some combustible particles if only the theoretical (stoichiometric)
> amount is somehow entered.   All four (or five?) functions going on at the
> same time,  but any one entering O2 molecule does only one of these four
> (or five) functions.  My point here only is that I don't see any rocket
> stoves, only TLUD type (char-making at one stage; Philips is one) working
> on preheating secondary air.  I think you can help the TLUD community a lot
> with a study on secondary air hole locatio
>  n and dimensions, preheating, etc - but I will leave it to rocket stove
> designers to answer your main question.
>
>    On charcoal using stoves,  I see something very similar:  no (?) use of
> secondary air holes.   There may be some and well designed, but the recent
> paper by Bentson, Still, etal shows results for 14 different
> char-consumers, and it doesn't appear any use secondary air supply.  This
> paper is #10 in a list I gave a week or so ago.  [  Energy for Sustainable
> Development:   Volume 17, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 153?157]  As Crispin
> said, you want to burn up the CO, and so far none of the char-burners are
> passing the CO part of the water boiling test.  I have no idea how to do it
> when users are (usually, not always)  placing the cook pot right on the
> char.  Maybe you can figure something by looking at the 14 stove results.
>  Maybe the authors at Aprovecho have CO and efficiency data to go with the
> interesting fuel load data in that paper.
>
>     My conclusion - If you want to study the size and shape secondary air
> questions you first proposed - you might want to join the TLUD tribe.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:26 AM, "Sarbagya R. Tuladhar" <sarbagya007 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I am basically looking at natural draft front loading continuous feeding
> wood stoves and natural draft charcoal stoves. The reason I am
> investigating these is that for a wood stove, having secondary air
> component "really" did impact on the CO and PM production. The two stoves
> similar in design had the same thermal efficiency but then differed a lot
> with the emissions. The secondary air supposedly used was via the exterior
> gap ( I am guessing similar to the Philips TLUD). However, I am not talking
> about the TLUDs here but just normal front feeding wood cookstoves.
> >
> > Heard from Crispin regarding the role of secondary air in charcoal
> cookstoves. So it is used to burn the evaporated volatiles and the CO to
> CO2. Designs of the Benin charcoal stove have a simple concept of having
> holes on the bottom of the outer body which allows air to flow through it
> and then this pre-heated air is exited out to the combustion chamber to aid
> in the combustion of the volatile unburnt gases. Does this feature work?
> >
> > Looking to hearing from you.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Sarbagya
> >
> > On 21/08/2013, at 1:25 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> >
> >> Sarbagya:
> >>
> >>    Can you narrow down the type of stoves you are looking at?  And why?
> >>
> >>    You seem to be talking of TLUDs, and when mentioning consuming char
> is that in a TLUD?
> >>
> >>    We have seen some nice designs with secondary being preheated with a
> central pipe, not the exterior gap you describe.
> >>
> >>    At least one stove developer (Kirk Harris) has argued for using that
> exterior space for added insulation.  A topic fairly easy to compare in the
> lab you appear to have available.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Sarbagya R. Tuladhar <
> sarbagya007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi stovers,
> >>>
> >>> The debate on the role of secondary air both for natural draft and
> forced draft has been raging for quite some time now. Obtaining secondary
> air in pre-heated form has been the research area for me in the laboratory
> for the past few weeks. However, one conclusion I obtained was that
> secondary air if not pre-heated would have the tendency to put off the fire
> by blowing in cold air.
> >>>
> >>> Hence my question is:
> >>>
> >>> What is the role of secondary air for wood burning stoves ? Is there
> an optimum gap for the secondary air to travel between the jackets of the
> combustion chamber before ejecting out into the combustion chamber ? How
> does this effect the performance of the cookstove ? I know a few cookstoves
> which have secondary air concept included and which seemed to decrease the
> CO and PM up to some extent.
> >>>
> >>> What is the role of secondary air for charcoal burning stoves ?
> Quoting Crispin "Secondary air is necessary to burn charcoal in a low O2
> environment at a high temperature." How does this effect the performance of
> the charcoal cookstove?
> >>>
> >>> Waiting for the responses.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Sarbagya Tuladhar
> >>> Pondicherry, INDIA
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20130822/5bd0ef1d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:23:27 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
> Message-ID: <028c01ce9f53$efb1ec40$cf15c4c0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Josh
>
>
>
> I too hope you will consider the source: Burt Rutan.
>
>
>
> Dear Ron
>
>
>
> When you can?t beat the science, beat the messenger. (It sometimes works).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I notice, Ron that the rate of natural warming in the first period is
> faster
> than the second which also appears natural. You omitted to mention that the
> globe has been warming naturally for three centuries at the same rate
> (0.7?C/century) during the whole period covered by this chart. The 8000
> year
> trend however, is down, as is probably well known from many studies and
> temperature reconstructions.
>
>
>
> Dear Andrew
>
>
>
> If you cannot control the contributors you might consider not allowing
> personal attacks. Netiquette usually requires that contributors refrain
> from
> making obvious personal attacks. While this group has been pretty loose, I
> feel it has reached the stage where it has become the habit of bullies to
> dry to attack the person of other contributors.
>
>
>
> Ron in particular seems unable to control his invective when he sees
> something for which he has is no other ready response. He and Paul O
> continuously try to make their views on AGW part of what is usually a
> discussion about stoves. While carbon funding is part and parcel of some
> stove programmes, that context is rarely included. It is obvious that the
> intent of the personal attacks is intimidation into silence. As I cannot be
> intimidated, it is not working and will not work.
>
>
>
> Thus we are left the possibility of implementing some sort of censure for
> those who choose a non-academic pattern of discourse . Either the topic is
> banned, or misbehaviour and uncivil conduct is banned.
>
>
>
> As it is entirely possible that emotions could run just as high over
> technical issues regarding measurements and ratings, stove classification
> and the levering of financial advantage, all issues with a potential to be
> poorly understood by some participants, the suggestion I am making is that
> if people want to continue to discuss ?climate issues? outside the biochar
> list which was established as a place for that (apparently ? I do subscribe
> to sites with broader interests) then I see little choice but to impose
> external discipline where self-discipline is apparently lacking.
>
>
>
> As with climate data, the raw data from stove tests stands on its own.
> People are free to interpret it any way they like, but when it comes to
> making claims for performance, the ordinary rules of chemistry, physics and
> mathematics apply. Beliefs and personalities do not carry weight in a
> formula.
>
>
>
> May we all please concentrate on developing better stoves and test methods
> based on a good understanding of first principles.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/4d7fa5ab/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 20960 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/4d7fa5ab/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:44:42 -0600
> From: "Andrew C. Parker" <acparker at xmission.com>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Role of secondary air on wood burning and
>         charcoal stoves
> Message-ID: <op.w178ssa3uoov7l at dad>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Some very interesting designs, evolved from the rocket stove, that control
> both primary and secondary air, can be found at <donkey32.proboards.com>.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 36, Issue 31
> **************************************
>



-- 
Art Donnelly
President SeaChar.Org
US Director, The Farm Stove Project
Proyecto Estufa Finca
<http://email2.globalgiving.org/wf/click?c=1Oy%2FmZbgIyjS5WI580KXwShvfKBcF2eaJvtN7Pi6p7Jl%2FiR4938EMMCBwY%2FuYALeA%2BQYUWN4RpvnxBsBC7e2%2BGIHcONTozBmvsUU5LTL%2FTNk4Q3vxE%2BKdXTV2cxIsFplSPh%2F9nMG3bQMQf4bz9ZK9SHMy46Z8OPLAtMAnPG9SKkPuLCWvofBTLC%2BImqax%2BZTkkF2RvDri5UdgH19NHjHOBj5WMUrS4L62Z2xxUJbBsJdDUOfeifheNFXH546Xm0yul4P2stm%2FTUOJxYnI0nFjXEaYfzxDSc%2FwgqVkR1t0USDHk30%2Fgt9UpDpyzLj37HWtnNQ0q8Jh1gZCkB4Y1Fgbg394gYFkyNqFN4MchxO2Js%3D&rp=wrhiOr2wAxUyDMDlMSqbOkKa0FpPoiCSHffb%2ByfHGClRxIFjEIrUDwAF%2BFD%2BpAPuvam9BDwvSMcadhFv7aFwKoyAXYrFk00%2B92xPIeMHXaTDJ3x0VIj6ZYwjm1win65o&up=YDTqBOjidbCUo%2Far1oAtZjp5ji73zPEvmoO14mevuXzIDUdb6Ac9W13SPOXmzL5NflZkH0HxLp0v4dT9UwEHDV0wSZ1qusv09bIKkUliWs4%3D&u=LHuflw_1TAib_lgCu2JvQw%2Fh0>
"SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/6eddfcac/attachment.html>