[Stoves] stove

[Kirk H.]

Xavier,

Thank you for your response.  Attached are some answers to the questions you raised.

Kirk H.



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Xavier Brandao
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 5:57 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'; 'Ronal W. Larson'
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stove

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 for Windows 10

From: Ronal W. Larson
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Kirk H.
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 Mail for Windows 10
 
<Kirk stove.mp4>




Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171211/0b3a2ccf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Xavier response.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18267 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171211/0b3a2ccf/attachment.docx>