[Stoves] stove

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 15:11:29 CST 2017


Frank:

It gets complicated, way complicated, very soon, from public policy
perspective. Unless you narrow the inquiry down to specific location and
period.

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.

Cooking is not a scientist enterprise at all. Scientists will bake only
their cakes and well they should. If they capture and occupy the kitchen,
poor people will be thrown out as they have been for the most part.

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.

Nikhil




On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:41 PM, Frank Shields <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> 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 cellfranke at cruzio.com

<franke.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171216/4636c3c5/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list