[Stoves] Mis-information

Sat Mar 31 23:57:19 CDT 2018

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> 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/ <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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://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 <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/ <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 <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/20180331/41652704/attachment.html>