[Stoves] Stove talk

Thu Sep 22 09:30:28 CDT 2016

Dear Kirk

I am very interested to understand better your use of mixers with rocket
stoves.

I am working with Permaculture farm and a school in Bali Indonesia on
trying to get some poorly performing but beautiful looking Cob rocket
Stoves to perform better.
Would you be OK to share some information and suggestions with me, I can
share with you some photo and information on the stoves and typical fuel we
have here.

I suspect the design we have was designed for both cooking and heating
which is not really suitable for our tropical environment.

Tony Vovers

On 22 Sep 2016 3:04 p.m., "kgharris" <kgharris at sonic.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> There has been a lot of negativity on the list lately which Ron has been
> addressing.  I don't want to get caught up in this.  I would prefer
> to contribute stove talk to the list that suits my interests.
>
> To this end I have attached some photos of one of my current projects,
> using in a rocket stove the rapid mixing techniques which make the
> Wonderwerk TLUD-ND stove very clean burning.  This project is just getting
> started and so the technique is not yet developed.  It will hopefully be
> interesting for the members on the list.
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *To:* miata98 at gmail.com
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] WHO's for whom? For what?
>
> Nikhil  cc List
>
> You continue to miss the point.  At this site: http://lists.
> bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org, the
> first line reads:
> *This discussion is provided to help people develop better stoves for
> cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions. *
> The key words are cooking, biomass, developing.  Your message below
> addresses none of these.  Repeat NONE.  Your photograph proves the same - a
> waste of bandwidth.
>
> If you wish to talk about *“fuel ideologies”*  (your last two words)- I
> think it best you find another list.
>
> I find it insulting to many when you use terms like *“abuse of science”,
> “spurious theories”, “concocted data”, "volunteered blindness” and
>  “saviors…market ADALYs*” - none with any semblance of an example.  I
> cannot recall any such negative writing by anyone that is so devoid of
> proof.
>
> The purpose of the ISO work (insulting to call it an exercise) is to get
> real numbers - the basis of science - to develop improved stoves.  I
> challenge you to say what you dislike about that ISO work - into which a
> lot of smart people have put a lot of effort.   My belief is that you know
> nothing about the ISO subject you are disparaging.
>
> Please prove me wrong by being specific on your “positive” suggestion;
>  just one example of what the experts did wrong with the ISO work (what you
> termed “insane.”…)
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rnn:
>
> Thank you. I have been busy looking for woodstove shops on Cape Cod. None.
>
> I was as disappointed as you are with me. I found some kitchens with -
> egad, ventilator fans!!
>
> What has come of EPA and MASSDEP?? Restaurants with foreign food -
> Portuguese, Chinese (Trump alert!) - are polluting the outside air, the
> pristine air of Provincetown! (Pictures attached).
>
> Where are WHO and EPA modeling emission rates and concentrations over the
> Atlantic, the east coast of US and Canada? At $9 million per saved
> statistical life, it's a crime that our dear Global Alliance and Global
> modelers of premature mortality are ignoring the lives of say, Nantucket
> residents (median family income $90,000+)?
>
> ****
> What soured me on what is marketed as science? Well, the marketing. Of
> spurious theories and concocted data.
>
> But that is ok. Science evolves. New paradigms emerge. Science struggles
> through.
>
> What stinks to high heaven, however, is the abuse of science by the
> advocates, the saviors of the poor ready to market ADALYs.
>
> I don't celebrate my ignorance. I do object to volunteered blindness.
>
> I have a single positive suggestion -- dump the ISO exercise. Get out of
> the box mentality, look at the cook and food, not fuel ideologies.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Ronal W. Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nikhil, cc list
>>
>> I apologize for not responding sooner.  Been busy.
>>
>> I find your response below to be most disappointing.  It is clear that
>> you have no use for WHO, EPA, GACC, Michael Johnson - and essentially
>> no-one on this list - many/most of whom have put in many years in trying to
>> develop cleaner, fuel-saving stoves.  I have no idea on what has soured you
>> on science.
>>
>> Dr. Michael Johnson, who was the key presenter in this webinar had been
>> asked to develop a methodology to help countries solve indoor air pollution
>> problems - that included stoves but was for more than stoves.  I thought
>> his work was outstanding; he answered an important question that many of
>> are interested in.  It is clear you had/have no idea of what either he nor
>> WHO is trying to do.
>>
>> I have not seen you give one single positive idea from you about helping
>> the aim of this list.  Your satire leaves me cold.  Your humor leaves me
>> cold.
>>
>> I ask that you stick to the topic of this list - which does not include
>> supporting the use of coal or ridiculing those who are concerned about
>> global warming.  It does not include giving advice such as your last line:
>>
>> *The rest is blogal noise of vested interests who know nothing about the
>> poor, nor care. *
>>
>>
>> I have read nothing by you that gives you the right to be so insulting to
>> very bright and highly motivated scientists like Dr. Johnson - or most on
>> this list.  It is clear too me that you know nothing about the poor
>> yourself, nor about stoves.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ron had asked us all "I suggest waiting until after this webinar to
>> answer your questions about WHO and stoves."
>>
>> There was no mention of Daniel Wilson's ES&T paper.
>>
>> I watched much of the Webinar. It was quite an entertainment. Comedy.
>> Tragedy. Horror. Drama. Action.
>>
>> I am not enlightened.  Can anybody tell me if s/he was able to find light
>> - or heat?
>>
>> Priesthood of any sect/cult narrates platitudes around which questions
>> can or cannot be asked and answered.
>>
>> I don't remember any mention of that four-letter word FOOD.
>>
>> A stove can do many things - the glass top electric ranges are as good as
>> a table top.
>>
>> And a stove can get dirty in a myriad of ways. Cooking IS dirty; just ask
>> anybody who has had to clean a stove or a kitchen.
>>
>> But we have most Quixotic adventurers, tilting at the windmills, in
>> search of "clean air". Via box models.  Clean kitchen or clean food - or
>> the quality of food - are assumed to be irrelevant to the question of
>> cooking and health.
>>
>> Find your little sandbox and play. Let someone else bother about food and
>> health.
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> WHO will save the people?
>>
>> Not WHO.
>>
>> My humble (!) suggestion to well-meaning stove designers: Avoid and
>> ignore advocates' deceit and pretense of knowledge. Don't insult the
>> pursuit of knowledge - with all the qualifiers about assumptions and
>> uncertainties that researchers do emphasize but the ritual of cite-o-logy
>> ignores. It is unethical to be guided by unconvincing science just because
>> it is done by scientists.
>>
>> What is to be done? a) Keep on innovating for specific geographic
>> markets, considering a variety of fuels and appliances, focusing first and
>> foremost on "cook food"; b) Formulate your ideas of market size and timing;
>> c) Understand your customers' desires but also keep in mind that desires
>> and needs are pliable and change in response to factors beyond your
>> control; can you make just a fifth of the customers in a particular
>> geographic market adapt your stove/fuel solution enthusiastically? If
>> anybody comes to buy a second stove - even if the first one is virtually
>> given away - that's the proof of your design. d) Yes, emissions, exposures,
>> fuel consumption, time taken to cook, are all relevant to customers, but
>> you really don't know who weighs what more than others, and what other
>> things (fuel cycle management drudgery)
>>
>> The rest is blogal noise of vested interests who know nothing about the
>> poor, nor care.
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> <photo 2.JPG><photo 1.JPG>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13061 - Release Date: 09/22/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160922/c488da34/attachment.html>