[Stoves] SPAM Re: [Biochar] Embers from Three Stone as Biochar - Who has done this?

Wed Apr 7 08:52:45 CDT 2021

So in the field we can use Hugh's quick No Soap Test.

What lab can I test the char in and what should they test for?  I assume
the lab testing can be done anywhere since campfire embers should be the
same as three stone embers.

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 11:15 AM Hugh McLaughlin via groups.io <wastemin1=
verizon.net at groups.io> wrote:

> Hello K, et al.
>
> The Soap Test serves several purposes - it identifies materials being sold
> as biochar that are just fines or crushed material originally intended as
> charcoal for cooking. Cooking charcoal needs tars and volatiles to assist
> in lighting the material to get the carbon hot enough to initiate char
> gasification - the red color of the carbon directly reacting with the air
> on the surface of the char.
>
> For char that is not being bought, the soap test serves to identify
> material that is headed for the soil (passes) and material that might be
> used as "brands" in the next burn cycle because of the easier lighting
> aspect discussed above.
>
> Biochar that fails the soap test may inhibit plant growth, especially if
> there is a burnt or tarry odor, or it may just have water soluble sugars
> that dissolve into the groundwater - becoming soluble organic carbon, which
> is readily used by soil microbes. Unfortunately, the same microbes use any
> available nitrogen in the groundwater, which will impact plant growth until
> the microbes consume the excess soluble organic carbon.
>
> For makers of biochar, failing the soap test means the biochar did not get
> hot enough as you made it to drive off the tars. It also helps to sort the
> batch into good versus recycle.
>
> It is a fast and easy guide that helps with the biochar maker's learning
> curve.
>
> - Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE
>
> PS: I have attached a pdf of Chapter 8 of the 2011 book "The Biochar
> Revolution". It has additional tests for biochar properties. The guidance
> is ten years old and some advice may be outdated, but it is a start. I
> wrote it, but I will not defend it if it clashes with newer guidance. It is
> ten years old, as am I.
>
> On Monday, April 5, 2021, 9:30:49 AM EDT, K McLean <kmclean56 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hugh, my colleagues in Africa have tried the "Soap Test".  After crumbling
> the char from three stone in their hands, they can wash the black off their
> hands with just water.  Here is a video
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/6gfemZo6DsJWgydx9>.  Char from my backyard
> fire pit also passed the soap test.  What does this tell us?  The char
> should work as biochar?  Most of the tars have burned off?  Should we do
> other simple tests?  Thanks.
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:03 PM Hugh McLaughlin via groups.io <wastemin1=
> verizon.net at groups.io> wrote:
>
> Hello Many Different Groups, with many different priorities,
>
> Ron has kicked several issues into my court to see if I will take the
> bait. I will to the extent of offering my thoughts, but I will decline the
> offer to convince the world I am right. You can lead a horse to water - the
> rest is up to the horse and whether it is sufficiently thirsty.
>
> When it comes to biochar quality - it is easier to assess the material
> after it is made and cooled down than to predict/indemnify it based on how
> it was made or deserves to be good. It is like food: It is good unless it
> is bad for one of many reasons. The most basic criteria for biochar is the
> "Soap Test" - good char will not leave a black coating on the hands that
> will not be removed by cold water (mostly removed - it is a qualitative
> criteria and requires experience with other biochars. If soap is required
> to remove the biochar from one's hands, that is because of tars and the
> biochars is inferior and/or charcoal.
>
> Good biochar does not have any significant burnt odor - or taste! - and
> wets out when dropped into water after being ground into a powder. Oh - if
> is friable - easily crushes into smaller particles and even collapses into
> a powder. Additional pluses, but not necessary, are a silvery reflection.
>
> And, any contamination entering with the biomass will remain in the
> biochar - unless actual analytical measurements prove the contamination is
> not longer present. Hard to do, expensive, and not justified when one looks
> at the exhaustive list of clean biomass sources.
>
> As for handles and letter combinations - I don't care and will not get
> into the fray.
>
> My favorite disclaimer is BOHICA - which is obvious to those who have
> encountered it and better kept a secret for the others.
>
> - Hugh
>
> On Friday, April 2, 2021, 12:21:45 AM EDT, Ron Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Two lists  and cc Kevin and  Hugh Mclaughlin
>
> See inserts below.
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2021, at 8:37 PM, K McLean <kmclean56 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stoves list, biochar list, cc Ron Larson
>
>
> Have any of you actually used embers/char from an open-fire cookstove (eg
> 3-stone) or campfire as biochar (soil amendment)?  Did it work?
>
> African women can get plenty of char from three stone while cooking.  But
> will the char work as biochar?
>
> Ron and I have been discussing this with others.  We all have ideas on why
> it should or should not work.  But we cannot find anyone who has actually
> tried it.
>
>
> *[RWL1:    I’m firmly in the ’should work’ camp.  I’ve been privileged to
> see more than Kevin's cites below and seen a lot of char produced with
> scientific knowledge of their measured chracteristics.  So I am pretty sure
> this char should have the large surface area we usually desire. - as in
> this famous graph from this early non-fee  Johannes Lehmann paper.*
> *
>  (https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1540-9295%282007%295%5B381%3ABITB%5D2.0.CO%3B2
> <https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1540-9295%282007%295%5B381%3ABITB%5D2.0.CO%3B2>)*
>
>
> * Hugh   what can you recommend for Kevin’s associates in rural African
> towns where this work is occurring?  (Hugh being the biochar expert I trust
> most on such measurements)*
>
>
> We want to train women on smallholder farms to collect, quench and crush
> embers and then charge the char and apply it to their fields.  I think this
> training can happen at scale with relatively little expense.  With hundreds
> of millions of families cooking over open fires, the potential is enormous.
>
>
> *[RWL2;  Kevin’s use of the word “charged” refers to urine.*
>
>
> * Kevin has had great success using women’s auxiliaries in local churches
> to spread the word about adding rock beds under 3-stone fires
> to significantly improve stove efficiency.   Costs for adding one new rock
> bed user is pennies. The same likely here - with char removal. The
> difference from many such stove education programs is that this one will
> involve biochar.  We know that much more care has to be taken when the char
> is scheduled for the field rather than cooking a meal.*
>
>
> Using tongs to remove embers, women can make 300-800g of char daily.
> Because they've reported that firewood usage does not increase, SNV did a
> simplified WBT
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/10aUtzXfo_y9AlmCBr5zMo-tLZbQ8qq48/view?usp=sharing>
> and, counterintuitively, SNV found only an insignificant increase in fuel
> usage.
>
>
> *[RWL3:  I’ve. reviewed this SNV work (in Viet Nam) and have asked for the
> raw data as well as the finished reports.  *
>
> * But I can believe the results. - because the embers that are being
> collected (by SNV and by women being paid for the char) had already mostly
> given up its hydrogen.  The fallen ember necessarily came from near the
> bottom of the fuel bed - where it was not contributing much to water
> boiling.*
>
> * Kevin’s note is just the beginning of the study of what could be
> revolutionary for converting any 3 stone fire into a char producer.  Kevin
> and I have been discussing other features of a small modification of 3
> stones that will only cost a few dollars and significantly
> improve efficiency.    I am quite sure we can go from a Tier zero
> performance to Tier 2 or 3 - with a lot of char.*
>
> * I have Kevin’s permission to offer one possible name for his stove - a
> B-CHER. (“Cher” being pronounced as the French word for “Dear” - meaning
> premium or precious,).    The BC comes from being biochar itself shortened
> to BC or here B-C.    HER is short for “Hot Ember Removal”.   Only
> two syllables in B-CHER - as in “T-LUD.    Other thoughts?*
>
> * Coming  are more details on how to make (locally) a Tier 2-3 stove for a
> few dollars.  I believe there are then billions who can find those few
> dollars if they are making char with little or no extra effort.  And they
> can first make char with no dollars invested.*
>
> * This is why I am excited about Kevin’s newest work.*
>
>
> But will the char be effective?  Who has tried char made this way as
> biochar?
>
>
> *[RWL4:    I couldn’t recall any char or biochar papers along these
>  3-stone. lines.   But I told Kevin that I would look up some of the
> earliest biochar papers. (Before the name ‘biochar” was adopted).  They
> used char purchased along a rural road. Almost certainly this char was made
> in a mud covered mound - and therefor was  a low temperature char - much
> lower than char made in a. 3-stone fire.*
>
> * A key way to think of Kevin’s approach is that all combustion (burning))
> of wood starts with a pyrolysis phase.  The ‘HE” - hot ember
> will presumably have the low H2 we desire, simply because we know it
> went through a red phase - and. Kevin’s workers see no white ash.  Also I
> think virtually impossible for a “HE” hot ember to have broken off of the
> larger size pieces used in 3-stone fires, until it was indeed s
> usable char..*
>
> * So I’m looking for Hugh M’s thoughts on HER and B-CHER.  *
>
> * And others?*
>
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
>
> *Kevin McLean, President*
> *Sun24*
> *https://sun24.solar <https://sun24.solar/> Embers from Three Stone
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NBJwnqQToaNJlYu-NajiFh8KQQEqiQJW-jHX29wQuQo/edit>*
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NBJwnqQToaNJlYu-NajiFh8KQQEqiQJW-jHX29wQuQo/edit>
>
>
> _._,_._,_
> ------------------------------
> Groups.io Links:
>
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#29716)
> <https://Biochar.groups.io/g/main/message/29716> | Reply To Group
> <main at Biochar.groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BBiochar%5D%20Embers%20from%20Three%20Stone%20as%20Biochar%20-%20Who%20has%20done%20this%3F>
> | Reply To Sender
> <wastemin1 at verizon.net?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BBiochar%5D%20Embers%20from%20Three%20Stone%20as%20Biochar%20-%20Who%20has%20done%20this%3F>
> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/81767281/3888534> | New Topic
> <https://Biochar.groups.io/g/main/post>
> Your Subscription <https://Biochar.groups.io/g/main/editsub/3888534> | Contact
> Group Owner <main+owner at Biochar.groups.io> | Unsubscribe
> <https://Biochar.groups.io/g/main/leave/10143906/3888534/1191350657/xyzzy>
> [kmclean56 at gmail.com]
> _._,_._,_
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20210407/b9706fb1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2021-04-01 at 8.28.47 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 218068 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20210407/b9706fb1/attachment.png>

[Stoves] ***SPAM*** Re: [Biochar] Embers from Three Stone as Biochar - Who has done this?

[Stoves] SPAM Re: [Biochar] Embers from Three Stone as Biochar - Who has done this?