[Stoves] TLUD stove is fragile, traditional stove is robust, no stove is antifragile

[Paul Anderson]

Cheng,    see below

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 12/2/2017 7:48 PM, lh cheng wrote:
> TLUD stove is efficient but fragile. this fragile concept comes from a 
> book "Antifragile", written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, like Dr 
> Anderson, he is a Doctor and professor. He have a good understanding 
> of man-made artificial system, have deep insight of the weakness of 
> some man-made system, and he find a good way to make money (of no 
> small amount ) through it from financial market.
>
> Fragile thing like Titanic ship, is high efficient, beautiful, but 
> there were big risks, which cannot be avoided anyway, underneath the 
> surface, when something wrong happened eventually, inevitably, no one 
> can afford it.
>
> I criticize TLUD stove here, not in malice, but try to make something 
> clear, maybe we can find out the hindrance of its popularity, find a 
> direction to improve it, and help the user to use it in a safer way.
>
> TLUD stove separates gas combustion from gasification, and is 
> batch-feed, this combination create efficiency and convenience, but 
> also big risk. many thing can cause the fire ( gas combustion )  go 
> out, too much or too little gas, too much or too little air, 
> temperature too low, (too much or too little prmary air, cause too 
> much or too little gas, both can lead to extinguish of the secondary 
> combustion), too much moisture in the fuel. once the fire go out, 
> great smoke jet out like crazy, poisonous, and the fuel is burning 
> inside the inner cylinder like crazy, no easy way to put out the first 
> combustion. it is very dangerous and bad situation for housewife, 
> neighbors scared by the big smoke, people even can got killed by the 
> poisonous gas. (when water can't low down the charcoal temperature, 
> water H2O can be turned into poisonous CO gas immediately).
>
The paragraph above does not express the reality of 40,000 TLUD stove 
users living closely together in We s Bengal, India.   the concerns you 
raise can be presented in "theory", but that is ot the reality.   You 
are writing line the TLUD "deniers" of 5 to 12 years ago.   I heard that 
over and over.   It is in the big New Yorker magazine articles.  Those 
people are not saying such things any more, at least not publically or 
where their comments could leak back to me.
> Traditional stove have no such thing, because it is not batch-feeding, 
> not burning in a tight closed space. and safer in unexpected 
> situation. it is robust. that's why people prefer it over TLUD stove 
> maybe.
>
> I have no clear idea yet, I just typed this message, not thinking it 
> thoroughly.
>
I accept your statement that you are basically not yet well informed or 
with much experience.   Stick with the TLUD stoves.   They are the wave 
of the future.   They can become better, and that is where you and 
others will eventually make important contributions.     -- And there 
will be many who will sit on the sidelines.     --- Progress in the past 
few years has been great, and getting  better all the time.

I'll sign this message to show my full bias.

Dr TLUD
> best regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-12-02 7:50 GMT+08:00 Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Paul:
>
>     Capital cost of the stove is a minor issue; the question is
>     whether the users like and use the stove. This is why contextual
>     definitions matter, because pellet production costs can vary
>     greatly depending on the feedstock.
>
>     A high capital cost stove can be given one-time subsidy - should
>     be given to the distributor if one exists; could be given to a
>     bulk producer - on the condition that the stoves are found useful
>     and used. Metrics of efficiency and hourly emission rates are just
>     smoke.
>
>     I am glad to read "it is something about family, a cultural thing,
>     especially in country side." Gives the lie to physics-only
>     theories of supposed "stove science".
>
>     Nikhil
>
>
>     On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Paul Anderson
>     <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
>         Cheng and all,   (and a mention of Todd Albi).     see below.
>
>         Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>         Email:psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>         Skype:   paultlud    Phone:+1-309-452-7072 <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>         Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
>         On 11/29/2017 10:15 PM, lh cheng wrote:
>>         Another Chinese little project. Surely, it is cookstove, not
>>         heater. Too expensive, 1500RMB (230 USD), in rural area, a
>>         big number, very big, no one buy, not even one, in rural
>>         area. For user, many uncertainties to use new type of stove.
>>         if free of charge, a trustworthy friend who is an expert
>>         about this stove, that might be fine.
>         I was wondering about the price of that pellet burner stove. 
>         Yes, it is expensive, but expensive is a relative term.   It
>         could be imported into America where $230 is inexpensive, but
>         the price here would be so much higher and it would then be
>         expensive here.
>>
>>         stove thing should be open-source ( just like Dr Anderson's
>>         Champion Stove ), DIY, or made by acquaintance, it is
>>         something about family, a cultural thing, especially in
>>         country side. In city, electricity or LPG is enough.
>         Is there any prospect in China for DIY.   And what would be
>         the acceptance of a stove made with thin metal?  
>         Generalizing, it seems that heavy construction of stoves is
>         the standard in China.   Todd Albi might be able to shed some
>         light on this.
>>
>>         a good approach for stove design maybe is that, basic
>>         knowledge of stove design spread among people, and people
>>         help each other.
>         What do you have in mind?    in the context of China?   I have
>         difficulty imagining stove design work in China outside of the
>         factory context.
>>
>>         concerning "stove intervention", during 1959-1961 in China,
>>         more than 30 millions of people died because a stove
>>         intervention movement. and people have memories.
>         Please provide more information about this statement about 30
>         million deaths.
>
>         Welcome to the world of the Stoves Listserv. We appreciate
>         your insights.
>
>         Paul
>>
>>         best regards
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171202/1f6c2532/attachment.html>