[Stoves] stove

Kirk H. gkharris316 at comcast.net
Mon Dec 11 18:12:26 MST 2017

Ron and All,

I did use the WBT to develop the Wonderwerk 316 stove.  It was however only part of the overall testing.  Mainly I used it to test changes in the stove intended to get more of the heat produced by the stove to the surface of the pot, and less heat lost out the sides of the stove.  I used the same pot/skirt/pot-stand combination through all of this part of the testing, so the WBT showed only the results of the changes in the stove.  I was not so concerned about the geometry of the cooking surface because it will change for different uses; pot, frying pan, wok, plancha, or whatever.  I was concerned only with getting the most possible heat that is produced by the stove to the cooking surface.  Perhaps the same results could have been achieved without the WBT, but I could not have measured them, so there might have been changes in the stove that made no improvement because I couldn’t test them.  A lot of luck would have been involved.

This way of using the WBT was only at Aprovecho.  At Berkely we were testing the stove as designed at Aprovecho, not making changes.  

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Ronal W. Larson
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Kirk H.
Subject: Re: stove



	The stove list has had a lot of disagreement about the water boiling test (WBT).  Can you say that you used that a lot to make iterative improvements?  And eventually of course at Apro and Berkeley.  Any way that today’s results could have been made without the WBT?


On Dec 11, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Kirk H. <gkharris316 at comcast.net> wrote:

Sent from Mail for Windows 10
<Kirk stove.mp4>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171211/fbdd90d7/attachment.html>

More information about the Stoves mailing list