[Stoves] stove

Tue Dec 12 04:47:40 CST 2017

Dear Frank

Most of the cooks I know do need some means of controlling the heat – the power of the stove. Some foods need extended simmering, some frying is better at medium heat rather than boiling oil, etc. So it’s not a question of what people like best, it’s a question of how and what they cook.  But if you are measuring the stove efficiency, you have to know its power  - if only because when you are really simmering, the fuel efficiency (useful heat into the pot/raw fuel fed) is zero – when you simmer you are not putting anything into the pot, just making good the losses.  

Best regards

Philip

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Shields
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:45 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stove

Dear Philip,

There may be a lot more things we can determine once we get control of the six variables And that will depend on how much control we can get. Even the discussion Paul and Crispin are having as the CO and CO2 reactions will need control of the biomass properties and packing before answers (with help with using helium surrogate) is determined.  And we must be using real wild biomass prepared for the combustion chamber or the results will mean nothing when the stove and test results are delivered to the receiving site. 

I don't know if we can get the variables controlled enough to do what you suggest about determining high and low power possibilities. That may be left to Cecil and his ethnography work to see what people like best. 

But I do feel certain that nothing will be done (like for the past ten years) until we do get control of the variables. This is not an engineering problem - like it has been treated. Simply going from biomass fuel > to > completed task. And how well people like using the stove. 

Regards

Frank Shields

Gabilan Laboratory

On 12/11/17 8:50 PM, Philip Lloyd wrote:

Dear Frank

One aspect I felt you had left out was the power at which the stove was operating. It affects many things.  Just boiling water, at low power you may never get past the nucleate boiling phase; at high power. The transition to film boiling can be slow or abrupt. Add something to the water, and heat transfer again changes – and if what you have added is like starch, then the viscous properties of the pot contents will change with time. 

Philip

Energy Institute, CPUT

PO Box 1906

Bellville 7535

Tel 021 959 4323

Cell 083 441 5247

PA Nadia 021 959 4330

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Shields
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:14 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stove

Hi Michael, Stovers;

This is a good example where the 6-Box system would be useful. 

Set up the system so it makes good tea. The process is to control the variables and modify one at a time to improve the process. There are lots of steps you can do but would take some time, test methods and a little equipment. All simple but not good at this time. Once you have a good fuel, good technique, and can produce a good cup of tea I suggest the following:

Box-1) Observe the fuel for size, moisture, cleanliness etc. 

Box - 2: Record the process loading the combustion chamber.

Box- 3: Record the combustion chamber; stove model etc.

Box-4: Establish info regarding the utensils used; metal, size, heavy-light etc.

Box-5: Record the process; stirring, amount of water, amount of tea, sugar added etc.

Box-6: Determine a good repeatable Completion Point. Perhaps water just starts to boil or i can hold my hand on the side of the pot for just one second.

You need to know what an improvement would look like for you. Quicker tea but not care of amount of fuel. Save on fuel, walk away with less manipulation, air quality, amount of char left, quality of char produced, etc. Whats important is what the end user decides important. 

Now all steps are controlled and should be repeatable. You can change one Box at a time and see if that improves the process. Use dryer wood or stir more frequently. Use a lighter pot or less water. Add wood more frequent in smaller quantities - try to get the best conditions. 

Because no-one else is doing the same system you will not be able to compare to other systems. But you might be able to improve your own. And there are lots of measurements for the fuel that can be made (not described here) but use simple test methods and no need for a real lab. Perhaps just some basic equipment.  

Frank

Gabilan Laboratory

On 12/11/17 6:24 PM, Michael N Trevor wrote:

Lets look at this another way.

NO lab, 

NO equipment

How do I test? 

I thinking how well it cooks my tea is a good tool

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:

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>

 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Garanti sans virus.  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com 

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

-- 
Frank Shields
444 Main Street Apt. 4205
Watsonville, CA  95076

(831) 246-0417 cell
franke at cruzio.com

_______________________________________________
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/

-- 
Frank Shields
444 Main Street Apt. 4205
Watsonville, CA  95076

(831) 246-0417 cell
franke at cruzio.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171212/74940398/attachment.html>