[Stoves] World stove Re: Mis-information
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sun Apr 1 01:56:28 CDT 2018
Ron,
1. I am glad to see via the website www.worldstove.com that World
Stove is again with a presence on the Internet. Copyright 2018.
Attractive site.
2. I am not into FaceBook communications, and Nat is still not listed
as a recipient of these email messages, (but I hope Ron or someone is
sending him blind copies or keeping him posted.) WE (not just me)
look forward to further contact with him.
3. Several important items on the website (I might have missed
something, so people should read it for themselves):
A. Six different models of stoves, but not described.
B. Use of pellet fuel mainly (which is fine, and is highly appropriate).
C. No clearly identified projects, nor mention of numbers of stoves in use.
D. The diagram of the stove (as included in an earlier message by
someone) is from this website, not from some earlier posting.
E. World Stove does not work with individuals, but only with entities
that are screened (vetted) by World Stove. No indication of who those
currently are.
F. A very important technical note:
> The air is drawn through a flame cap at a rate that is slower than
> that which would be needed to consume all the oxygen present in the
> air, leaving mostly heated nitrogen as the driving force for our
> pyrolisis in the fuel. A significant advantage of this is
> spectrographic analysis of biochar produced in a correctly operated
> LuciaStove shows that the resultant biochar has a nitrogen spike.
> Nitrogen is a very volatile gas and in other forms of pyrolisis is
> driven out of the biomass. Subsequent lab and greenhouse analysis have
> confirmed that the nitrogen in the biochar produced by the LuciaStove
> is accessible to plants.
FOR ME (maybe not for others), the above is the first addressing of the
issue that O2 cannot make it downward throught the top flames. Pyrolysis
certainly can happen without O2 present (as seen in any retort where
flame is only on the outside of the biomass container). And N2 that is
at combustion temperatures could bring the needed heat to the biomass.
If that is indeed the case, the hot N2 will NOT cause a TLUD type MPF
(pyrolytic front that is rather thin, maybe 2 cm.). Instead, the hot
N2 gases will dry, torrify, and then pyrolyze a zone as deep as the area
where the temperatures are sufficiently high. It would be nice to have
some research evidence about the thickness of the zone where these
actions are occuring. For example, we want to know what is the
temperature at each level inside the column of fuel as the stove is in
opeation for 10 minutes, then 20, then 30, 40, etc to the end. And to
know the temperature of the gases that are exiting outward from the fuel
column at the lower holes. (Note: these holes should not be called
"primary air" holes because that is not their function in such stoves.).
There should be questions about the nature of the char / biochar that is
produced. Retort chars are anoxic (without any O2 or flame presence),
whereas TLUD chars are oxic (with a glowing burning at the MPF). We do
recognize the presence and release (change of molecular position) during
pyrolysis of some of the oxygen atoms in the carbohydrates, and they can
become CO and especially CO2 (with exothermic release of heat), but no
"glow" as far as I know. Nobody talks of a "flame-type process" inside
of retorts barrels. None should occur in the stoves that are being
discussed here.
I do maintain that such stoves (crediting them with downward flows of
gases) are quite distinct, are certainly not TLUD stoves. Those stoves
deserve a REAL NAME that is not just to change the letter U to an O in
TLUD to be TLOD. Can someone please give this stove type a REAL name
that is not a derivative of a stove type (TLUD) which it is not.
Personal note to Ron, but for everyone to assist: Can I beg you to
stop calling it TLOD. It deserves a real name. Even the terms
"opposing draft" or "opposite draft" is demeaning and diminishing of the
uniqueness of these stoves because it requires someone to know about
what it is opposing. Please go get a decent name for this stove
type. And stop hanging on the coattails of the established TLUD name
(which is not just an acronym any longer).
Let's have a contest: NAME THAT STOVE!!! (actually name that STOVE
TYPE). Here are some names (partly in jest).
A. The venturi effect is pulling the pyrolytic gases outward from
those lower holes. Sort of sucking out those gases. Hence: The
sucker stove. (No, not a good name.)
B. Name it after Nat Mulcahy or World Stove. (Nat should be consulted
about that possibility.)
C. Please do not call it "Lucia" because that name has special meaning
with the forced air stove by World Stove, which is VERY different from
the stove type being discussed.
D. Oppositional stoves. Or simply "OD" without any reference to
TL (top lit). Maybe "DOD" or "DDOD" for DownDraft Opposing
Draft. But I think that the words "opposing" and "opposition" do not do
justice. And DD for downdraft has a clear meaning in the world of
full-featured gasifiers .
E. Why not call it a "rockette" or "rocket-et" stove so that it can be
confused with rocket stoves? (no, not a good name.)
Marketing is important. The name for this stove is important. And TLOD
sucks as name, and it comes from Ron, not from Nat. (And I personally
consider it to be an infringement on the established name of TLUD.)
So please get a name before "sucker" catches on. And Nat can ask Ron
to not bring up that "O" name any more.
Warm regards to Nat. I hope this message gets sent onward to you. I
remember well and fondly our conversations at some meetings. Glad to
hear about your two children!! And about activity by World Stove. I
hope you send further information.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 3/31/2018 11:57 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Paul et al (Note correct address for Kirk Harris now)
>
>
> Inserts below (short because it is getting late)
>
>
>> On Mar 31, 2018, at 9:30 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
>> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> You treat the past as if it were the present.
>>> *RWL1: Thanks to Crispin for his additional support that World
>>> Stove is alive and well. *
>> Crispin said nothing about the present. His was a prior
>> observation. NO news about the state of World Stove.
> *[RWL1’: I don’t know the date of Crispin’s last connection with
> World Stove. Mine was an email exchange this past week with Nat. In
> that, he sounded content. His website is quite current.*
>
>
>>> *a) On the one hand, Nat has a patent -.........*
>>> *b) I admire Nat’s work, and know he has invested a lot of time and
>>> money in its development. *
>> The word "has" can refer to things done earlier and still
>> acknowledged as having occured. But "has invested" is not the same
>> as "is investing." There is ZERO evidence of Nat's continuing to
>> work on his devices. I hope that he is doing so, but the silence
>> for 5 or 8 years is total. Only you (Ron) keep making it sound as if
>> World Stove is still active or if Nat is still active with stoves.
> *[RWL2’: Nat communicates a lot on Facebook. Mostly personal, but
> not always; now has two youngsters. “silence is not accurate - only
> on this list. I am pretty sure he has been in contact with people at
> GACC. I take my correspondence to be a bt more than “ZERO evidence”.*
>
>>> *e). Maybe Nat can authorize (with royalties) other manufacture and
>>> use of what he is selling.*
>> The word "is" is not appropriate without evidence of some (any?)
>> selling actually occurring or even being attempted.
> *[RWL3’: Disagree. I don’t believe there is any statute of
> limitations if one has a valid current patent (I think was applied for
> in 2007 and granted (?) in 2013. - all stated on the patent number I
> gave below.*
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up a previous message from me, even though you
>> and I disagree about this topic. I totally continue to maintain
>> what I wrote in that cited message. Tryner's work was seriously
>> flawed in the section where re-loading of TLUD stoves was examined.
>> Neither she nor her supervisors were aware of actual TLUD stove usage.
> *[RWL4’: I think this last “Neiher” would be hard for you to prove.
> CSU is closely associated with a major stove company (that may be
> adding a TLUD component [ which I have held]). CSU is more than a
> rank beginner on this topic.*
>
>> They just experimented with a substantial amount of additional fuel
>> and found problems, and the "second phase" was without any MPF
>> (migratory pyrolytic front). How many people (in addition to you)
>> have been misled by that part of that research? It is better if it
>> is ignored that to have that approach be studied and propagated.
> *[RWL3: I agree on being able to add fuel with Nat’s TLODs.*
> (Some Mulcahy videos show this.) * But so can any TLUD. The doctoral
> thesis by Jessica Tryner covers this topic as expressed (with
> unhappiness) by Paul Anderson at:*
>>> http://www.drtlud.com/epost/re-stoves-new-handbook-for-biomass-cookstove-research-design-and-development/
> *[RWL5’: On Monday, I will call Jessica. My recollection is that
> they added fuel both when there was and wasn’t an MPF. It would make
> sense to do so while there was an MPF.*
> *I can’t agree on ignoring anyone’s research - and especially
> Jessica’s - which I thought was quite complete (and she had an expert
> as thesis advisor and some top stove people on her doctoral committee).*
>>
>> And nobody has found Heath Putnam yet? He has valuable inputs if we
>> can find him.
> *[RWL6’: I agree that Putnam “has valuable inputs”. But he was
> claiming I believe (for awhile) that all TLUDs operate with a central
> downdraft. Not your point of view I am sure. I have looked at one
> of his experiments fairly closely and will try to write on it later.
> I think it shows how to distinguish TLUD from TLOD - and he didn’t
> see these obvious differences.*
> *
> *
> *Ron
> *
>>
>> Paul
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> Website:www.drtlud.com
>> On 3/31/2018 8:17 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> List and Crispin and Gordon: cc Paul, Kirk and Andrew (in this thread)
>>>
>>> See inserts below.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 6:10 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Gordon
>>>> The World Stove works very well. When it was discussed here some
>>>> years ago, I mentioned that it appeared to be a new type of stove.
>>>> I agree that how it works is not obvious, however I can assure you
>>>> it does and that many thousands of them have been sold.
>>> *RWL1: Thanks to Crispin for his additional support that World
>>> Stove is alive and well. *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *I agree with Crispin that it is by no means obvious with how the
>>> TLOD works. But I suggest that there is now not much reason to
>>> doubt what Nat has claimed in his successful patent. The patent is
>>> at: *
>>> *https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110209698. *
>>> * Look especially at patent figure item #50 in part #19 for what I
>>> consider the main new (Venturi) feature that is not a part of any TLUD.*
>>>
>>>> There are elements of the design missing from that drawing.
>>> *[RWL2: Agreed. The simple figure given by Gordon is only vaguely
>>> similar to the many figures in the patent. I am intentionally not
>>> re-inserting the figure introduced by Gordon.*
>>>
>>>> A significant aspect of the design is that it can be refueled
>>>> cleanly while running, separating it from most TLUD’s,
>>> *[RWL3: I agree on being able to add fuel with Nat’s TLODs.*
>>> (Some Mulcahy videos show this.) * But so can any TLUD. The
>>> doctoral thesis by Jessica Tryner covers this topic as expressed
>>> (with unhappiness) by Paul Anderson at:*
>>> http://www.drtlud.com/epost/re-stoves-new-handbook-for-biomass-cookstove-research-design-and-development/
>>> *which leads one to *
>>> http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/517.html
>>> *where there are multiple cites to Dr. Tryner’s work. This
>>> (otherwise very nice) stove overview document has nothing on TLODs
>>> and World Stove.*
>>>
>>>> at least until there is a significant accumulation of ash at the
>>>> bottom.
>>> *[RWL4: Disagree again. Essentially no ash. A main beauty of
>>> the TLOD is that it is virtually impossible to burn up the produced
>>> char (unlike all TLUDs). This is mentioned briefly in the above
>>> patent. Nat makes a major emphasis on using the produced char as
>>> biochar.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *[RWL5: New topic: How much new and additional effort by this list
>>> should go into comparing TLUDs and TLODs?*
>>> *a) On the one hand, Nat has a patent - and this has presumably
>>> caused little work by others. I am not advocating anyone trying to
>>> duplicate Nat’s work and ignore the patent.*
>>> *b) I admire Nat’s work, and know he has invested a lot of time and
>>> money in its development. I don’t want to cause him any new patent
>>> defense difficulties. Actually I am impressed by the work of
>>> hundreds in improving and modifying TLUDs. Is this perhaps because
>>> there are no patent issues (that I am aware of).*
>>> *c) On the other hand, his work is only poorly known and
>>> acknowledged. It seems logical that because he has a 10 year head
>>> start on everyone else, any TLOD discussion should generally help
>>> World Stove. And Nat has an existing manufacturing approach
>>> designed to minimize costs that will be hard to beat. Besides the
>>> above two issues of adding fuel and avoiding char production, the
>>> stove is obviously very clean (but no detailed report I am aware of)
>>> and seems to have all the advantages of a TLUD (time saving, income
>>> generating, etc)*
>>> *d) (Getting agreement today to bring up this topic from Kirk
>>> Harris), I hereby apologize to Nat if I am making the wrong choice
>>> in encouraging others to see if they can (while necessarily
>>> acknowledging the above patent) strive for modifications that might
>>> convince the patent office that another TLOD type patent is
>>> justifiable. I am pretty sure that one can’t patent use of the
>>> (several hundred year-old) Venturi principle. (Nor do I see that
>>> Nat has made that claim).*
>>> *e). Maybe Nat can authorize (with royalties) other manufacture and
>>> use of what he is selling.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Ron*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Crispin
>>>> On 28 March 2018 at 15:51, Gordon West <gordon.west at rtnewmexico.com
>>>> <mailto:gordon.west at rtnewmexico.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is this the downdraft stove concept being discussed? (From the
>>>> World Stove website)
>>>> <image001.jpg>
>>>> In this depiction, I do not understand how the feedstock that
>>>> is below the “gas” holes would ever pyrolyze, whether updraft
>>>> of downdraft, since no air would be passing through it.
>>>>
>>>> Good find Gordon, I had heard Nat talking over the table about this
>>>> but never seen a schematic, I'm tending toward being sceptical.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180401/1bf2713c/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list