[Stoves] A wisdom of Rebecca's stove

[Lloyd Helferty]

Crispin,

   Someone /does/ have "a [TLUD] stove that can use the fuel remaining" 
-- but /also/ makes biochar.   It's called a "T-Char" stove:



... and it is up the "user" to decide whether to keep the char (for the 
soil) or "burn it down to ash".

I can't comment on the overall "Efficiency" of the device (or its 
derivatives), however.

Regards,

   Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
   Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
   www.biochar-consulting.ca
   48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
   905-707-8754
   CELL: 647-886-8754
      Skype: lloyd.helferty
   Steering Committee coordinator
   Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
   President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
   National Office, Canadian Carbon Farming Initiative (CCFI)
   Come learn about biochar in October:
     www.carbon-negative.us/symposium
   Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
   Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
            http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
    Advisory Committee Member, IBI
   http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
   http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
   http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
   http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
   http://www.biocharontario.ca
    www.biochar.ca

"Technology is only a tool.  Sustainability is determined not by the the individual technologies, but rather how -- and even whether -- we decide to use them."
    - Lloyd Helferty

On 2013-09-04 12:27 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
> I am not sure why you use the word 'rebuttal'.
>
> >   a.  I am going to wait for release of the 72 slides from the EPA 
> webinar to answer much of this
>
> I think that is a good idea.
>
> > - since I am mostly trying to defend the material there, which is at 
> great odds with Crispin's approach (which I still do not understand)
>
> With respect to the issue of fuel remaining after a test, we are in 
> agreement. The slides may explain it to your satisfaction.
>
> >   b.  I note that Crispin did not rebuttals one of my points,
>
> Rebut??
>
>  [RWL4:   In the first sentence, assuming that Crispin's  "cannot" 
> includes "is not designed to", I would interchange the terms "under" 
> and "over".  This is getting back to the issue of apples and oranges - 
> where I believe there is some validity in adding them - if/when one is 
> consciously attempting to maximize both, they are expressed in the 
> same (energy) units, and are calculated with equivalent formulae.
>
> Both what? The apples are *stoves that can burn the remaining fuel*. 
> The oranges are stoves that cannot.*If someone has a stove that can 
> use the fuel remaining* and chooses not to, that is a feature of the 
> user, not the stove and does not affect the rating given to the stove. 
> We don't rate what people do.
>
<snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130904/190ab74f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fhjicifh.png
Type: image/png
Size: 36804 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130904/190ab74f/attachment.png>