[Stoves] Fuel qualities as the limiting factor, and getting rid of WBT (Was: Frank on helium surrogate)

neiltm at uwclub.net neiltm at uwclub.net
Sat Jan 28 15:04:32 CST 2017


On 28 Jan 2017 at 9:06, Frank Shields 
wrote:

> As an example; it is pointless to test for low power and high power using
> processed biomass then expect the stove to do the same using unknown wild
> biomass. That biomass may not even light in the stove. So we need to first
> quantify the fuels. That is much more than just ~oakTM and ~pineTM,
> ~dungTM and 'pellets'. How to do that? I have ideas and I am sure you
> do also. We need money for the research. I have worked with biomass for
> many years and most of my ideas i have tested many times. But I don't know
> how well the test will pertain to actual stove combustion. I have yet to
> make that connection.

Given that so much money seems to be 
spent on stove lab testing anyway, why 
not simply give away a quantity of 
stoves on a sort of crowd sourcing basis, 
to as many cooks willing and motivated 
to test them in as many different 
countries, climates and settings as 
possible and then collate their reports 
on the strengths and weaknesses, the 
versatility or lack thereof, how and how 
frequently they use them etc etc.

The example of the paraffin primus 
stove was cited the other day as an 
example of a single stove suitable for a 
great variety of environments all around 
the world, as of course the LPG stove 
doubtless is.  Easy because the fuel is 
always the same. The extent to which a 
biomass stove might approach such 
universal adaptability with unprocessed 
biomas is surely interesting, and might 
be crowdsourced as it were to 
determine the answer perhaps?

Some idea might thereby be guaged as 
to the optimum environments for the 
stove in Q, such that it could then be 
'sold' with confidence to those 
environments and user profiles.  The 
parameters of variability of biomass 
used might be further assessed by 
targetted visits to particularly 
interesting and/or typical sounding 
users, to firm up on more precise 
measurements and understandings of 
their successful uses and useful limits.  
The cooks are then then the testers 
informing the stove designers.

'My' Chinese ebay stove for eg. would 
probably emerge as particularly well 
suited to its actually intended market, 
but with an emphasis on temperate 
rather than say dry hot or tropical 
regions where *lack* of sufficient 
moisture in available biomass seems 
likely to be more of a problem and 
where a stove with sufficient primary 
air control, or fixed at a lower 
proportion to secondary might be more 
appropriate.  Preliminary lab testing 
could obviously filter prospective users 
to target, but only such actual real use 
is surely ever going to reveal the real 
strengths and weaknesses of any stove?

The Reed woodgas campstoves I would 
say, while successful, were not 
optimally so in the temperate zones they 
were mostly bought in I'm guessing, but 
great in dry conditions. Just a limited 
example to illustrate my point.

It interests me that the Chinese stove is 
so much better than any of the 
tincanium stoves I have made.  Also the 
Reed XL stove performed better on its 
original burn chamber than the one I 
fabricated rather crudely out of sheet 
steel to replace it when it burned out, 
despite reproducing accurately the 
number, size and position of the 
primary and secondary air holes.  It still 
works satisfactorily, but not as well, and 
so it seems that design and quality 
manufacturing makes a significant 
difference.  It would be great if an even 
better wood gas camp stove were to be 
manufactured, yet I suspect probably 
won't be, maybe can't be?, but only 
perhaps with other preferred (or not) 
strengths and weaknesses, such as 
trading fuel versatility with soot on 
pans.  I'd love to be proved wrong of 
course!

Neil Taylor






More information about the Stoves mailing list