[Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
Paul Olivier
paul.olivier at esrla.com
Thu Aug 22 19:59:48 CDT 2013
Please see: http://climaterealityproject.org/
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I agree with Art and I would remind us that argument is witnessed by
> researchers, governments, NGOs, and funders etc. who read this List and it
> reflects badly on the stove movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Art Donnelly <art.donnelly at seachar.org>wrote:
>
>> 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<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<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/<http://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<http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-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"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130823/6f567bcf/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list