[Stoves] stove

Frank Shields franke at cruzio.com
Sat Dec 16 16:46:36 CST 2017


Dear Nikhil,


On 12/16/17 1:11 PM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> Frank:
>
> It gets complicated, way complicated, very soon, from public policy 
> perspective. Unless you narrow the inquiry down to specific location 
> and period.
>
The USCC used 'stakeholders?' to develop the test methods and 
interpretations. Regulated itself regarding certified labs. EPA required 
the heavy metals and bacteria reuirements. The labels were also 
regulated under Gov. regulations. Canada had different regulations for 
metals etc. and each State could require more stricter regulations. But 
the USCC  (like a group we could make up) ran the program.
> It is not often that you can control fuel quality and reliability of 
> supplies. People vary crops and they also vary trees. Who collects and 
> delivers what biomass is an issue of land rights; access to public 
> trees for trimming, pruning, and total taking down of the tree; 
> opportunity cost of labor and capital for establishing and sustaining 
> a fuel supply enterprise; and, of course, sales and service network 
> for new types of stoves.
This was easy for the old WBT. They used a 'lookup' value for the fuel 
and this one value used for all the biomass fuels. Very easy. : )

>
> Cooking is not a scientist enterprise at all.
It is if you look at it from a bigger picture.
<snip>

>
> The challenge is not only user-centred, reiterative engineering, but 
> placing it in the institutional and cultural context. Scientists, 
> cooks, policymakers, lawyers, financiers all need to come together to 
> make a promising project.
Yes - lets do that!
>
> Nikhil
Frank

>
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:41 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com 
> <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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 <tel:%28831%29%20246-0417>  cell
>> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>> <franke.vcf>

-- 
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/20171216/55f67dcf/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/20171216/55f67dcf/attachment.vcf>


More information about the Stoves mailing list