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

[Frank Shields]

Dear Crispin

I get the point. 

Im not saying we need to prepare a novel fuel. If they like stick fuel (and most will) then they will like it even better if the sticks are sized and dried and the stove they use has been shown to burn these cleanly. 

We have no problem getting people to use stoves - they already do. We just need to make them cleaner. And the variable (for now) is the fuel [Box 1] - as I see it. If that variable is not controlled then there is no need to be working on another variable or making changes to the WBT or develop any other test because the problem is still there. With variable fuels all the results from any test is meaningless. 

Most studies and attempts to correct test problems has nothing to do with cleaning up the air. All the research I am suggesting is to directly clean up the air. More than study (again) how dirty it is. 

So only when Box 1, the fuel variable is controlled do we move forward to Box 2. How the fuel is placed, rate of insertion, etc. to give best results. Perhaps make the door for the fuel a size that only allows so much at a time or pre-package a cylinder of biomass for a TLUD - I don’t know. 

 Regards
Frank








> On Jan 29, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Frank
> 
> How is this: ‎the anthropologist comes from the field and tells you that the community will not spend time preparing fuel, and you can only plan on burning stick fuel. 
> 
> There is no problem attempting to sell a stove that needs novel fuel, or a processing method. But if you are told from the start not to bother, they will refuse to use it, it has to be treated as valuable information. 
> 
> When an industrial designer assess what to create, the customer sets the parameters. Apple famously held that people don't know what they want yet, they have to be told. Well stovers, a lot of cooks know what they want and what they don't.  
> 
> I think that's a good place to start. The designer can optimise the fuel chopping and sizing all they want: the community will refuse it.  
> 
> We can't work in isolation from the market. That's the point. 
> 
> Regards 
> Crispin 
> 
> 
> Dear Crispin,
> 
> I agree with the stove designer/selector criteria for guiding the process making a stove. But before taking it into the field I suggest it be tested using the biomass available and biomass optimized for that stove. That to be included in the instructions. I realize people are going to use the stove as they wish. But knowing how to prepare the fuel for optimum performance is a start. 
> 
> Preparing the fuel for stoves takes time and energy and may seem silly and likely not going to be done. BUT if the fuel is the variable that now needs control we will never get cleaner stoves until this is done - no matter what stove they use. I think a process that sizes and dries, splits, chips - whatever the available fuel before use is the best next step to cleaner stoves. 
> 
> Frank 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 29, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Frank
>> 
>> "If we don’t we are back to only the connected having the opportunity to market their stoves and all other backyard tinsnips designs don’t have a chance. Once that list is made you can add on all the additional requirements you want. The stove passes or doesn’t make the second list."
>> 
>> I think we are cleverer than that. It is quite reasonable to set before a stove designer/selector a set of 10 criteria of which half are hard science numbers or ranges and the other half are soft science requirements. 
>> 
>> A good designer can then create or pick a few candidate‎ technologies for verification and trials. 
>> 
>> The trials would be performed by experienced cooks and product reviewers from the target community. Cecil wants it to go in stages of 'weeding' and he wants it done before the technical evaluation. He often points out that the most acceptable and widely adopted product may not be the ones with the best technical specifications. 
>> 
>> That is why Toyota sells more cars than Lamborghini. 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> Crispin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> 
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>> 
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA  93907
> (831) 246-0417 cell
> (831) 771-0126 office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
> 
> 
> 
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> 

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com



franke at cruzio.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170129/41e3b328/attachment.html>