[Stoves] Mis-information

[Paul Anderson]

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.
> *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.
> *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 occuring or even being attempted.

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.  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 propogated.
> *[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/

And nobody has found Heath Putnam yet?   He has valuable inputs if we 
can find him.

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/20180331/b50b1d4d/attachment.html>