[Stoves] Stove talk - Rocket mixing
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Thu Sep 22 10:14:34 CDT 2016
Kirk,
Nice!!!! Very "Kirk-wellian" or "Harris-oniam". (And those are
compliments!!!).
1, You might want to try having more of the "nose" (innermost part of
the secondary air shelf) to be blocked off to force even more of the
flame nearer the center. There are so many ways to modify what you have
caught as a concept. And I know that you do those modifications so well
and with good observations of the results. I am sure that this is of
GREAT interest to Aprovecho and all who have worked so hard regarding
Rocket stove technology and dissemination.
2. Your drawing does not show the standard shelf and grate of the
classic Rocket stove. Please confirm it that shelf is still in the
design (I think that it probably should be.) Removing that shelf would
remove the most fundamental characteristic of Rocket technology.
3. Your drawing does not acknowledge that the air entering under your
secondary air shelf has BOTH primary and secondary combustion functions
(because some of the created pyrolytic gases are being burned with the
surplus of air that is entering. Very difficult to gain additional
control over the air flows, (and why Rocket stoves are not gasifiers,
which have gas production and gas combustion sufficiently separate to
have control over both.) How could you change your drawing to
illustrate this?
Looking forward to your next report.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 9/22/2016 2:02 AM, kgharris 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 <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *To:* miata98 at gmail.com <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <http://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/20160922/9c681d7b/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list