<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>Paul and lists.<br><br> 1. My first words were: "<em>I like all parts of your message below.....</em>" and later " .<span style="font-style: italic;">.thank you for being blunt.."</span>. I agree I was lengthy on Nat, but I felt it important to do so - because I feel Nat has explained a lot more about his stove than you were giving him credit for. Do you know anyone with more stove videos? I was also trying to emphasize that his Lucia is very different and I hope others will pick up on some of his corporate techniques (as I gather things are going quite well). I think the subject line was fine as is - and I change a lot of subject lines. Your "too closed" was what I took to be the subject.<br><br> 2. I think I also was on topic in talking about the problems of stove-related corporations - even non-profit ones. We cannot expect full disclosure of every stove detail when people are trying to make money - and might be losing it - and/or trying hard to avoid future losses. We need both corporations and volunteers - but we especially need the former now.<br><br> 3. I am now being redundant, but I (like you) hope everyone will share more stove data. But it is not easy to do. I'd rather get none than crappy data. Fortunately, this new global stove program should/will have some money to put into really thorough testing. In Dean's (and those at CSU or Berkeley, etc) defense, I presume there have been few people batting down their doors to fund a wide range of stove testing - especially as independent third parties. I know Nat has paid for his own - and presumably does release right now to those who he feels he should be working with. I have not seen any of his detailed test data.<br><br>Ron<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: psanders@ilstu.edu<br>To: rongretlarson@comcast.net<br>Cc: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Otto Formo" <formo-o@online.no>, wastemin1@verizon.net, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com><br>Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 1:57:47 PM<br>Subject: Ron changed the subject. . Re: Disapprovals about being too closed. Re: [Stoves] Air supply in TLUDs<br><br>Dear Ron,<br><br>If you wish to convert the topic to a discussion of WorldStove, please <br>change the Subject line.<br><br>Nat is a nice fellow with a great product, but his sharing needs to be <br>more than what I have seen, in my personal opinion. He has given <br>nothing about his emissions tests, and I know of no independent person <br>who has complete access to his technology for giving us more feedback. <br> Success by WorldStove is desirable, but so is success by First <br>Energy and Philips. May they all be successful. ALL of them have <br>honorable goals, including making a profit AND helping the poor who <br>could have access to those stoves. Good.<br><br>Once again, I have been blunt.<br><br>Now, can we please discuss what I wrote about?<br><br>Paul<br><br>Quoting rongretlarson@comcast.net:<br><br>><br>> Paul and ccs (adding "Biochar-policy")<br>><br>> I like all parts of your message below with one exception - thank <br>> you for being blunt. The exception is your statement that World <br>> Stove (Nathaniel Mulcahy) is acting like the other four in your <br>> five-corporation secrecy list. Today, Nat recommended a new video <br>> that I found clever but in no way informative about the technical <br>> side of his stove operations. But while looking at the new one, I <br>> saw this other 1:37 minute video about the Lucia:<br>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zefrhc8kgM&NR=1&feature=fvwp<br>><br>> Because I have been to his Italian facility and played with several <br>> Lucias with several fuels, I can assure everyone that a careful <br>> (cursory won't do it) review of what is shown and stated there (and <br>> you wouldn't need one in hand) would allow one to duplicate it and <br>> understand its principles of operation completely. Nat's is truly a <br>> remarkable invention - I know I could not have developed it myself. <br>> This video is the complete opposite of secrecy.<br>><br>> With several presentations at stove, Biochar, and UN-sponsored <br>> climate meetings, Nat has freely discussed how it works and has <br>> passed it around for close examination. He is showing a totally free <br>> (much simpler) design at his web site. But he did all this only <br>> after getting his patents. I think it is indeed a unique product <br>> that is worthy of patent protection in the best sense of that word. <br>> I presume that others are free to try to improve upon it and get <br>> there own patents - but my guess is that Nat's is pretty tight . <br>> Everyone should go into intentional avoidance of patents with good <br>> lawyers on your side first. What's more to get to the foundry <br>> casting of the two key parts is not a low budget operation.<br>><br>> So, I think it is much too hard on Nat (who has used up a great deal <br>> of his savings and quite a few years of his life) to say he is not <br>> sharing information Companies like those you have listed all have to <br>> make money or they go out of existence. A certain amount of secrecy <br>> comes with the territory. My point is that Nat has been remarkably <br>> open - I think because he has a new idea that is patent protected. <br>> Without that protection, we would not have this stove development. I <br>> can't see how any of the other four can make any claim on novelty or <br>> patents - which they probably all have. His product/patent is <br>> scalable to much larger sizes than simple stoves - where patent <br>> protection is obviously very critical. He seems to be open to joint <br>> ventures. Note he has been careful in training programs with only <br>> in-country assembly and a great emphasis on using the produced char <br>> for ag and sequestration purposes. So I feel that the implication <br>> that he is in this only for money is unfair<br>><br>> He still has to compete on price and performance with TLUDs (and <br>> hopefully some other future designs). There is no monopoly situation <br>> here<br>><br>> I have no financial interest in World Stoves or any other similar <br>> stove or pyrolysis operation.<br>><br>> Ron<br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: psanders@ilstu.edu<br>> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <br>> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Otto Formo" <formo-o@online.no>, <br>> wastemin1@verizon.net<br>> Cc: rongretlarson@comcast.net, "Discussion of biomass cooking <br>> stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>> Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 12:09:35 PM<br>> Subject: Disapprovals about being too closed. Re: [Stoves] Air <br>> supply in TLUDs<br>><br>> Dear Otto, Dean, and all Stovers,<br>><br>> I take issue with one statement by Otto, who wrote about Aprovecho's efforts:<br>><br>>> Good advice:<br>>> Leave it to others to test and tune the TLUD ND Gasifier Units,<br>>> please....................<br>><br>> I disagree. We (the Stover community) need everyone working on these<br>> issues. And Dean at Aprovecho has great facilities for doing testing<br>> of emissions. Dean, keep up the good work!!<br>><br>> Having said that, I now take issue with Dean and the apparent<br>> Aprovecho approach which is:<br>><br>> 1. Not providing all of the information that the others want to have<br>> about what testing is going on with the TLUD stoves.<br>><br>> 2. At Aprovecho, not involving to any noticable extent any of the<br>> pioneers or other experienced advocates of the TLUD stoves.<br>><br>> 3. Having made a major shift of direction from many years of "polite<br>> tolerance of TLUD gasifiers" to very recent "strong advocacy of TLUD<br>> gasifiers with bias toward Aprovecho recent initiatives." EVERYONE is<br>> most welcome to get onto the TLUD bandwagon, but let's not get into<br>> "private" separate bandwagons.<br>><br>> Comments:<br>><br>> Sure, everyone is chasing the money. The money for stoves has been so<br>> sparse in the past, and it now looks to be like major piles of funds<br>> could come to some participants, especially those with a tradition of<br>> being the advisors of the funding sources or recipients of grants in<br>> the past.<br>><br>> I commend Aprovecho for its leadership and contacts in the past. But<br>> not if it takes a self-serving approach at the expense of those who<br>> have cumulative decades of experience. Is Aprovecho trying to enter<br>> the big-time with corporate approaches to the stoves problems?<br>><br>> And while I am at it, why not "prickle" the entire "corporate world<br>> approach." The major work by First Energy India (former BP project)<br>> and the Philips efforts got mentioned in the recent article by Kirk<br>> Smith as if they were the only serious accomplishments with the most<br>> modern stoves. Those cooporations have thrown major money (millions<br>> of dollars) to have products that now can attract Dr. Smith's attention.<br>><br>> But those corporate efforts have SHARED NOTHING with the rest of us.<br>> No info about emissions levels, no cross-fertilization with others.<br>> "Do it alone or do not do it at all" seems to be too closed, in my<br>> opinion.<br>><br>> And does that apply to others such as Stove Tech, Enviro-fit, World<br>> Stove, and any others? They all seem to be determined to do it all in<br>> isolation, keeping everything to themselves. (Some exceptions like<br>> giving away tid-bits of designs or info does not equate to openness,<br>> but is good salemanship.)<br>><br>> Is that the way to do business to benefit the poorest of the poor and<br>> even the moderately poor? Perhaps it is, or so it seems to be in the<br>> capitalist model of stove work that is getting the attention.<br>><br>> However, the world arrived at its 2009 state of TLUD knowledge almost<br>> entirely by the efforts of dedicated individuals primarily on<br>> personally donated time and materials or as side-efforts to their main<br>> employment. Not one of those person is yet deceased, and all are<br>> still willing -- and highly capable -- to donate and contribute to<br>> accomplish their dreams. But there are limits, especially when<br>> exclusion is stronger than inclusion.<br>><br>> Sincerely,<br>><br>> Paul<br>> "Dr. TLUD"<br>><br>><br>> Quoting Otto Formo <formo-o@online.no>:<br>><br>>> Dear all,<br>>> I just happend to see this statements about the TLUD ND PekoPe and<br>>> are a bit surprized that Dean, claims "his" TLUD only can use<br>>> pellets and for how long the pellets lasts in the combustion chamber<br>>> as a flame and charcoal.<br>>><br>>> To my knowledge, the real "PekoPe" burns with an open flame for<br>>> about two hours and glow for another 4-5 houers by using 2,5 kg of<br>>> pellets made out of wood (pine)..!?<br>>> The other thing I noted was that "his" TLUD gives a number of 400 mg<br>>> PM, while Paal`s prototype done at the Aprovech Research Center,<br>>> only gave 223 mg PM in 2009!?<br>>> A lot of water has passed in the river Nile since then, even in<br>>> Zambezi...........:)<br>>><br>>> Good advice:<br>>> Leave it to others to test and tune the TLUD ND Gasifier Units,<br>>> please....................<br>>><br>>> Otto<br>>> Forester and still a TLUD ND "PekoPe" fan............without a fan........<br>>><br>>>> From: rongretlarson@comcast.net<br>>>> Sent: 2010-12-05 07:54:22 MET<br>>>> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org]<br>>>> Subject: [Stoves] Air supply in TLUDs<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Dean<br>>>><br>>>> I think you are describing below only a TLUD that has no control<br>>>> over the primary air supply. Or one that has a turn down ratio of<br>>>> unity. We should be able to do much better.<br>>>><br>>>> I urge having a means of controlling the primary air supply. If one<br>>>> is intending to consume the produced char, there will be a mighty<br>>>> small flame at the end or a huge flame at the beginning.<br>>>><br>>>> There are many ways to control the primary air - at low cost.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Ron<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>>>> From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net><br>>>> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <br>>>> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:30:33 PM<br>>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] K Smith Article in Energy for Sustainable Development<br>>>><br>>>> Hi All,<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Adding more air holes in the bottom of the fuel chamber in a TLUD<br>>>> allows pellets to burn up completely. If users want bio-char they<br>>>> just have to have fewer holes. Then the char is made since there is<br>>>> not enough air to support burning it.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> If it is tuned (!), the TLUD is very low in PM when it does not<br>>>> make smoke when starting and finishing the burn. CO is also<br>>>> generally low. In the well tuned TLUD we generally see around 7g of<br>>>> CO and 400mg of PM during the WBT compared to a carefully operated<br>>>> open fire at 55g CO and 2300mg PM. Generally the TLUD makes less<br>>>> smoke at the finish with more air holes because all the wood burns<br>>>> up without making smoke.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Isn't it great that a TLUD can be operated in both char making and<br>>>> no char making modes?<br>>>> The user can choose whether they want greater fuel efficiency or to<br>>>> make an agricultural additive.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Best,<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Dean<br>>>><br>><br>><br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------<br>> This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail<br>><br>><br>><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail<br><br><br></div></body></html>