[Stoves] Rights about stove designs Re: [biochar-stoves]
neiltm at uwclub.net
neiltm at uwclub.net
Sat Sep 12 13:40:07 MDT 2015
On 12 Sep 2015 at 12:00, stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org wrote:
> These cookstoves are not products with high margins for profit. In
> general, people and companies do NOT copy the products of others unless
> the prospects of good solid profits are proven, and by definition that
> means that the originator has proven profitability. People copy
> success, not effort.
There is a company in the UK - wildstoves.co.uk who supply woodburning
stoves of all sorts to the leisure market and who designed their own ND
wood gas camping stove which can also be used as a TLUD very successfully
I have found.
It has been extensively 'ripped off' by China directly selling through
ebay superficially different stoves, notably changing the round holes to
squares or trapeziums and retaining the original pot support design which
is actually very good I've found. The prices are a fraction of the
wildstoves ones, but the quality of construction is excellent in nicely
finished stainless steel as I have personally discovered.
I guess the size of the global leisure market is sufficient to make such
copying worthwhile at least where the design is simple. In fact there
seems very little in the way of such products currently available, and
Tom Reed's original LE fan stove has now ceased production with nothing
really filling that gap. I can imagine the leisure market receptive to
some of the designs discussed here which might help such initiatives
perhaps? I'm receptive to them anyway.
While on the subject, as a leisure user in the UK and europe, using found
wood in temperate climates often with high moisture content, I have found
the Reed fan stoves fuel fussy, requiring very dry wood to start and run
well especially if turning down. Very nice clean burn when suitably dry
wood is available or can be dried, leaving barely a stain on the bottom
of the pans, whereas the wildstoves ND stove couldn't be more different.
It's difficult to measure the rounded diamond shaped holes for area, but
the primary air appears to be in excess of the secondary air, but the
result is a stove which is made for damp climate success. It accepts
fuel the fan stove would make a smoky mess with, and once going is a fair
old blaze, especially as a TLUD with no possibility of turn down! Great
for stir fry! Feeding it to sustain the burn can be quite an art, but can
achieve a more manageable heat. It of course leaves pans black and sooty
as any open fire would. None the less it is not only visibly cleaner
than an open fire by virtue of the secondary burn, but so much easier to
light and sustain than the FD which surprised me for a ND.
I also discovered to my delight when in the Pyrenees with it this summer
that the small half litre kelly kettle perches on top of it perfectly
without the pan support, and unlike my previous experiments with making
or utilising a TLUD base for a kelly kettle, it boils water in a
comparable time to its own normal fire base, doing so with no or much
less smoke, thus also civilising it for use in proximity to neighbours.
Under these conditions, as a TLUD finally the chimney pan support makes
sense as the unit does not require refuelling for a sufficiently useful
burn time, and with a strong 'volcano' of flame emerging from the chimney
there is more useful heat. I'm sure the fuel efficiency is less than for
the normal fire base, but this can be reversed if also utilising the
chimney heat. It would be nice to see a comparable stove designed to fit
the larger kelly kettles if only to extend their neighbourliness, and I
am currently on the look out for suitable tincanium.
I hope some of my observations might be of interest, but recognise I'm
probably a bit marginal on this list!
Best wishes, Neil Taylor in England.
More information about the Stoves