[Stoves] Pebble bed three stone fire

Sat Nov 9 01:42:52 CST 2019

Rocks beds:

1.  Are a free *idea* (as opposed to a product);
2.  Are simple; and

3.  Provide the user with something highly desired (saved time and/or
money).

This combination allows for rapid and inexpensive dissemination.  (Is this
combination unique in the aid world?)

I believe that in a couple years and at relatively little cost (tens of
millions of dollars), half of households worldwide using traditional wood
cookstoves could be permanently using rock beds, cutting fuel usage by a
third.

Kevin

On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:43 AM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
> I'd like to prepare a message in a similar vein. How is it possible that
> simple measures such as aerating the fuel bed have not been taken up at
> scale?
>
> This concept is not new at all. There are three products I can think of
> that were brought forward in say, ten years, which did exactly the same
> thing. When Kevin first reported to me his effort to have very simple
> changes - the metal rod bent into a flat "U" - we had a discussion about
> other ways people have tried. The clay grate we were shown at the meeting
> is exactly the same as the grate in the Improved Kitchen stoves promoted 10
> years ago in Central Java. Exactly.
>
> Why did it catch on this time?  Well, that might be an interesting a point
> for Cecil to comment. Kevin didn't try to make money from it, as the Indian
> guy did with the folded metal "door stop" looking device. It wasn't tied to
> a stove programme like the Jolento promotion (which has other significant
> advantages).  He used a social network for promotion which already had
> regular meetings.
>
> There money behind the dissemination but not much - it is carried along as
> an easily transferred idea.
>
> The main benefit is fuel saving. This somewhat undermines your claim that
> people are not affected or interested in that choice - less or more. Why
> would a fuel saving measure spread so quickly to three million people by
> word of mouth if fuel saving was not something of abiding interest?
>
> Fuel consumption is important, as is determining it in an appropriate
> (contextual) manner.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
> *From:* pienergy2008 at gmail.com
> *Sent:* November 9, 2019 4:15 AM
> *To:* crispinpigott at outlook.com
> *Reply to:* ndesai at alum.mit.edu
> *Cc:* cec1863 at gmail.com; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Pebble bed three stone fire
>
> Crispin:
>
> Yeah, yeah. You found some photo opportunity.
>
> What problem are you claiming to solve, and what did this "efficient
> woodstoves" enterprise achieve in 50 years?
>
> I think Kevin's work has exposed the pretense and presumptuousness of fake
> EPA scientists let loose on the poor of the world.
>
> A serious draft under preparation. Please consider the means and ends in
> this silly competition of "fuel efficiency".
>
> I wonder if you can muster some shame.
>
> Nikhil
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:15 AM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nikhil
>>
>> Your obsession about our obsession may be answerable by referring to the
>> cook who said she was buying half as much fuel (150 K Shillings) per day.
>> Perhaps she too is obsessed but about saving money.
>>
>> I tried carefully, in detail, to assess whether the change in the fire
>> permitted her to use an alternative fuel which might save additional money,
>> as ins the case in Kyrgyzstan. She said, "No."
>>
>> She just spends half the money she used to.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>> *From:* ndesai at alum.mit.edu
>> *Sent:* November 8, 2019 4:00 PM
>> *To:* crispinpigott at outlook.com
>> *Cc:* cec1863 at gmail.com; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Pebble bed three stone fire
>>
>> Crispin:
>>
>> Please get over this "save the fuel" mania. What does it mean - either
>> financial saving if a bank gives a 10% real interest, or some ecosystem
>> protection that is context-specific and computing value to which (and for
>> whom) is an extremely demanding task.
>>
>> The discussion sparked by "rocks" was informative, just that we know the
>> basic combustion science of air flows for centuries. Why did it take so
>> long for people, even experts, to figure this out? Deliberate neglect of
>> options that don't allow pretense of science?
>>
>> I remember a couple of years ago, Ron had gone to some conference in a US
>> midwest university where a professor (of Indian origin, I forget the name)
>> had presented research on a cheap grate introduced in some communities of
>> Rajasthan. Looks like nobody paid attention to such research, even for
>> "fuel saving". Understandable; such solutions don't advance the
>> bureaucratic interests of EPA and the career interests of its contractors.
>>
>> N
>> ------------------------
>> Nikhil Desai
>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 7:35 AM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Nikhil
>>>
>>> You ask good questions.
>>>
>>> Africa is the place but not exclusively. I have a document showing the
>>> sums.
>>>
>>> It has been certified by the SNV lab in Cambodia using their modified
>>> water boiling test which was developed by GERES to try to correct some
>>> problems in the WBT4.
>>>
>>> The comparison is made with the performance of a three stone fire. The
>>> TSF is still very popular.
>>>
>>> The technology is not limited to three stones. They are experimenting
>>> with adding rocks (which increases breathing through the coals on the
>>> bottom) is all manner of stoves.
>>>
>>> Consider the rocket stove. It suffers from a high char production rate
>>> (as a fraction of fuel fed) and the change really improves performance in
>>> terms of high power, lower fuel needed and lowered emissions.
>>>
>>> Charcoal stoves seem to be improved if they are not the latest designs.
>>> At present we don't have to know why the rocks work, it is enough that they
>>> do.
>>>
>>> There is a very high retention rate. That alone indicates that it makes
>>> a perceptible difference and that it is beneficial.
>>>
>>> I talked to two users and they agreed it saves a lot of fuel. About
>>> half, she said.
>>>
>>> Until future notice, all stoves should be tested with stones added under
>>> the fuel. See what happens. Maybe it's good. Maybe it's always good.
>>>
>>> Let's see. Nothing could be cheaper.
>>>
>>> As to what would Berkeley do, they will sell stove use monitors.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Crispin
>>> *From:* pienergy2008 at gmail.com
>>> *Sent:* November 8, 2019 2:33 PM
>>> *To:* crispinpigott at outlook.com
>>> *Reply to:* ndesai at alum.mit.edu
>>> *Cc:* cec1863 at gmail.com; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Pebble bed three stone fire
>>>
>>> Crispin:
>>>
>>> Cute. Glad. Please give some context when possible:
>>>
>>> 1. Where?
>>> 2. Is this measured and certified under ISO protocols using WBT? If so,
>>> it can be compared with the tens of other products.
>>>
>>> Taking your "3 million" at face value, SNV success is to be celebrated.
>>> I don't really know how many of the "3 billion" people do all their cooking
>>> and water heating with literally "three stones" - nobody knows, pretense
>>> notwithstanding - but it is always good to find such examples of
>>> innovation. Unfortunately, I have had no first hand experience of cooking
>>> with wood on three stones.
>>>
>>> Just think - if rocks can reduce emissions, the price of aDALY could be
>>> driven down to $0.05 per capita per year! What would Berkeley do?
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Nikhil Desai
>>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>>> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:38 AM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>>> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Friends
>>>>
>>>> This is a photo of the three stone fire with a set of stones in it, and
>>>> a clay grate as an aeration device.
>>>>
>>>> In the past 8 months about 3 million people have adopted this as a fuel
>>>> saving and emissions reduction "device".
>>>>
>>>> The retention rate (continued use) is in the high 90's % range. It's
>>>> effect is obvious and basically free.
>>>>
>>>> This is a demo presented by SNV after the ISO meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Crispin
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20191109/7c1f42d7/attachment.html>