[Stoves] stove

Xavier Brandao xav.brandao at gmail.com
Mon Dec 11 18:56:07 MST 2017


Dear Kirk,

 

Thanks a lot for contributing to the debate, and for sharing your story.

Now this is really interesting.


You developed a stove that is, from what I read, highly performing.

You needed to use a lab protocol to develop it, you used the WBT. You say it allowed you to improve the stove, to the level it is today.

 

“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.”

You could have improved your stove while using another lab protocol. There are other lab protocols allowing to measure the performance without relying on luck, of course there are.

The questions that I think of: were some of the results of the WBT useful, some other misleading? All of them useful? Did you develop and improve your stove thank to, or despite the WBT? Would you have made your stove better with another lab protocol, or worse?

 

It would be great to compare the way you did the testing with the WBT, and the way you would have done it with another lab protocol. And see how results may have differed.


Can people working with other protocols on the List react?


Best,


Xavier

 

 

 

 

 

 

De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Kirk H.
Envoyé : mardi 12 décembre 2017 02:12
À : Ronal W. Larson; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Objet : Re: [Stoves] stove

 

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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

 

From: Ronal W. Larson <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Kirk H. <mailto:gkharris316 at comcast.net> 
Subject: Re: stove

 

Kirk:

 

              Nice.

 

              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?

 

Ron

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Sent from  <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> Mail for Windows 10

 

<Kirk stove.mp4>

 

 



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171212/0bdaa5b9/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list