[Stoves] stove

[Frank Shields]

Dear Nikhil,

My main issue is that we need to look at the complete picture of a 
receiving site and approach it like scientist. We will not achieve 
cleaner air, fuel savings and such until we do. We need to separate 
variables (as I have) and control them. Not as complex as it seems.


On 12/14/17 5:24 PM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> Frank:
>
> <snip>
> In the example below, I would add fuel chemistry; "good fuel" part is 
> contextual. Say, if I were to take over the cooking market in a given 
> geography completely - 100,000 stoves of various sizes and shapes 
> replaced by, or supplemented by, 100,000 new ones. I am sure biomass 
> is going to vary and so are stoves - in some Indian villages, one 
> stove and fuel for making tea, another to cook animal feed, and a 
> third one for heating water, a fourth one for daily dinners, with each 
> of them some other use other than the primary ones.
>
> So, to establish market prospects in a given area, you would have to 
> test maybe six kinds of fuels and four major uses to accommodate in 
> two "intervention designs".
>
I have a (starter) test package for biomass fuels. I suggest the stoves 
be sold with a description of the fuel that should be used and upper and 
lower limits. Then suggested means of delivering that fuel to combustion 
chamber.  That covers Box-1, Box-2 and the stove Box-3. Many different 
Rocket type stoves will take the same fuel. And likely the same with 
TLUD types. Then the wild biomass is collected at the receiving site and 
prepared for the stoves. It is tested to see how well it fits for the 
stove. The rest is for Cecil and like. There need be a place where the 
biomass is collected and prepared (tested) and then delivered. Nothing 
improves unless the proper fuel is used in the right stove.

Most stoves that use stick fuel (rocket) or chipped fuel (TLUD) will not 
need a lot of testing. Acorns, grasses, pressed and briquets, and odd 
fuels will require more testing and, I think, this program more helpful.

<snip>
> Then you blow me away with your view - "Whats important is what the 
> end user decides important. Now all steps are controlled and should be 
> repeatable."
>
I'm thinking if fuel is optimized and delivered stacked to the user the 
user will be pleased and more likely to go along with the program 
(Cecil?).  And using the right fuel results in positive change over 
established.


<snip>
> And suddenly you come up with the revolutionary advice "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."
>
I suggest to Michael the 6-Box system. But because no one is using it 
his single point data will not be of much use. We need many tests for 
comparison and improving. I'm thinking each receiving site (village?) 
has its own fuel and own tasks to complete. If the goal is to improve a 
Village then the approach must be village wide. Help provide the people 
with the fuel and combustion chamber that will best complete the task 
they want done.
> To me, that is a lot better way of proving and improving a combustion 
> device than to game the WBT.
The WBT went from fuel to task. That is good. But the method of 
collecting and interpretating data produced was way off base IMO. A good 
test if completely redone.
> <snip>
> Nikhil

Regards

Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com 
> <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20171214/7c9a3c8c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: franke.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171214/7c9a3c8c/attachment.vcf>