[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