[Stoves] Rights about stove designs Re: [biochar-stoves]

Robert Taylor rt at ms1.hinet.net
Mon Sep 14 16:29:30 MDT 2015


Ebay lists a number of iterations this stove with an additional riser 
under the pot stand, at a wide range of prices.

This one has clear photos:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Light-Weight-Wood-Gas-Backpacking-Emergency-Survival-Burning-Camping-Stove-Gifts-/141518911880?hash=item20f32f3988

This one appears (possibly) to have a better-made pot stand:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Outdoor-Lightweight-Wood-Gas-Alcohol-Portable-Camping-Hiking-Backpack-Stoves2015-/121511334111?hash=item1c4aa3d0df

Best regards

Robert Taylor

On 2015-09-15 3:27 AM, neiltm at uwclub.net wrote:
> Resending this as it came through in digest as gobledygook.
>
> I'm glad my post was of interest. Thank you for your comments everyone,
> and I look forward to hearing other's impressions after trying it.
>
> On 13 Sep 2015 at 12:00, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
>> 	I?ve made many dozen TLUDs.  I value my time too highly to think I could
>> come close to this price starting with two tin cans.  I?m anxious to see
>> what can get for these prices - and what I would do differently.  The two
>> photos I have seen don?t jibe.
> The photos in the ebay ad are confusing I agree, but all will make sense
> when you receive the stove.  In the first picture with the four
> components displayed, the double skin piece at TR with the secondary air
> holes sits on top of the base ring at TL.  The piece at BL with the
> primary air holes/grate then drops inside the above assembly with its top
> rolled edge rim resting on the ridge at the bottom of the top piece. This
> then comprises the bottom half of the fuel chamber which overall is a
> good size at 4" diameter X 3" fuel depth, making fuelling less fiddly.
> This compares well with the the Reed woodgas campstove LE which
> equivalent dimensions are each a quarter of an inch smaller despite being
> an overall larger stove. The in effect combined concentrator ring and pan
> support is displayed upside down with the hinged pot supports folded in
> for storage.  Nested for storage/carriage it occupies a space 5" in
> diameter by a little over 2.5" high.  It fits nicely in its bag in a
> small billy can, and together with the small kelly kettle fitted well
> inside our cabin luggage comprising our cook set for a month.
>
> My lighting technique these days for all TLUDs is to grate candle wax
> over the top of the fuel which is then easily lit.  If the light off
> fails for any reason, a little more grated wax dropped in usually helps
> it turn the corner.
>
> When not using it as a TLUD, and requiring a gentler heat I found it so
> easy to light a pine cone and place it in the bottom, adding one or two
> more or small pieces of wood.  Eventually the stove becomes sluggish and
> less responsive to further added wood.  Time to give the contents a good
> stir with a stick to riddle out the accumulating ash through the large
> primary air holes, and off it goes again.
>
> Paul, Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD wrote:
>
>> Please note that they fail to have any riser (pre-pot chimney
>> effect), which should be explored.
> I suspect you would end up with a cleaner emissions stove, but at the
> price of a less pocketable stove, and one with potential stability
> problems on variable camp ground because of overall height, to which you
> then add the problem of taking a windshield so much higher.  The
> remarkeable thing to me was to discover in its overall height of only
> 6.5" to top of pot support, or 4.5" to secondary air holes that it
> produced such a strong burn.  It only needs a chimney IMO if you wish to
> retain that performance with cleaner emissions which, correct me if I'm
> wrong, is where NDTLUD have traded one for the other in such formats
> unless fuel is optimal, both only being more easily achievable through
> the forcing of a chimney as in your Champion?  Different tools for
> different situations and priorities perhaps?  In TLUD mode, to be able to
> cut back the primary air once up to heat would be wonderful, as it does
> become a bit of a towering inferno, but it is hard (for me) to see how it
> could be done without adding too much complexity to the existing design.
>
> Intuitively I suspect the emissions are more comparable to the rocket
> stove than the much cleaner TLUDs worked on here with indoor air quality
> a primary concern, and pot blackening is certainly comparable to a
> rocket.  We found that dedicating one of those sponge backed scourers to
> just remove the soot, but leaving the pot black with more stable
> residues, and storing the pot in a plastic bag was all the civilising
> required to deal with the soot deposits.
>
> We also added this windshield which is a good match for the stove:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Foldable-Outdoor-Camping-BBQ-Cookout-Windbreak-Sto
> ve-Wind-Shield-Screen-8-Plates-/400786191281?hash=item5d50b7f3b1
>
> At the end of the day it is designed as a camping stove, and it fulfills
> this function impressively IMO and is easy to use, so few will be
> disappointed with it in the field I imagine where a good cooking heat
> easily achieved even with less than optimal fuel is of primary
> importance, and clean emissions much less so.
>
> Best wishes,   Neil Taylor
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>




More information about the Stoves mailing list