Dear Stovers/Biocharers;<div><br></div><div>Crispin asked:</div><div><br></div><div> My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up<br>> access to ash?</div><div><br></div><div>Wood may last 10 years on the forest floor. Charcoal will last 100,000 years! So, charring is a good idea. </div>
<div><br></div><div>TOM REED<br><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Send Stoves mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves-owner@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-owner@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br>
2. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Anand Karve)<br>
3. Tests online (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br>
4. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br>
5. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Frank Shields)<br>
6. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br>
7. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
(Tom Miles)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:49:07 -0400<br>
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID: <0eae01cc9578$5db726c0$19257440$@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Dear Dr AD<br>
<br>
My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up<br>
access to ash?<br>
<br>
Shall I re-phrase it?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
+++++++<br>
<br>
Dear Crispin and stovers,<br>
biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of<br>
organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The microbial<br>
population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil fertility,<br>
because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become<br>
available to the green plants.<br>
Yours<br>
A.D.Karve<br>
<br>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br>
<<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear Frank<br>
> Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the<br>
> whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would<br>
> charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash?<br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:01:58 +0800<br>
From: Anand Karve <<a href="mailto:adkarve@gmail.com">adkarve@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CACPy7ScGpbiDtL%2BHW5pPCL9OfiGskvU202SiGbJWbc__8a3y7w@mail.gmail.com">CACPy7ScGpbiDtL+HW5pPCL9OfiGskvU202SiGbJWbc__8a3y7w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
Dear Crispin,<br>
you are quite right. Char can affect soil characteristics like soil<br>
texture, water holding capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc.<br>
Good quality charcoal, which does not have any volatiles and<br>
pyrolignious acid in it, is not expected to serve the soil<br>
micro-organisms as a source of nutrition. If one wants to extract some<br>
energy out of biomass before putting it into soil, one should convert<br>
biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the soil.<br>
Yours<br>
A.D.Karve<br>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br>
<<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear Dr AD<br>
><br>
> My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up<br>
> access to ash?<br>
><br>
> Shall I re-phrase it?<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
> Crispin<br>
><br>
> +++++++<br>
><br>
> Dear Crispin and stovers,<br>
> biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of<br>
> organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The microbial<br>
> population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil fertility,<br>
> because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become<br>
> available to the green plants.<br>
> Yours<br>
> A.D.Karve<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br>
> <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Dear Frank<br>
>> Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the<br>
>> whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would<br>
>> charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash?<br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Crispin<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Stoves mailing list<br>
><br>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
> <a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
><br>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
> <a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
><br>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, ?News and Information see our web site:<br>
> <a href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
***<br>
Dr. A.D. Karve<br>
Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:12:37 -0400<br>
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "Stoves" <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Stoves] Tests online<br>
Message-ID: <0ec901cc9584$07d73db0$1785b910$@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Dear Friends<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have created a link in the Library at New Dawn Engineering's website to<br>
some of the more interesting/relevant stoves tests. The Library link on the<br>
main page now takes you to a couple of sub-menus, one for Stoves and another<br>
for Tests.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There is no fancy background - it is just a list of files. A single click<br>
will download any file, one at a time.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The direct link is <a href="http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Tests/" target="_blank">http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Tests/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you need a particular stove test result that you are sure was performed I<br>
can upload it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
These are all processed using the Heterogeneous Test Protocol, usually with<br>
no cooking involved. The tests involve an initial fuel load plus a<br>
refuelling, with `end` being declared when 90% of the total fuel mass has<br>
been burned. If 90% is not reached (as sometimes happens) it is noted.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
These are all space heating stoves with some cooking ability.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/e5ddbe30/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/e5ddbe30/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:31:23 -0400<br>
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID: <0ee301cc9586$a9998a70$fccc9f50$@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Dear AD<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>Char can affect soil characteristics like soil texture, water holding<br>
capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>If one wants to extract some energy out of biomass before putting it into<br>
soil, one should convert biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the<br>
soil.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So it seems we need to check what the comparative advantages of biogas<br>
slurry and biochar are. Perhaps both would help. I have not heard of a<br>
negative result from adding slurry.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/09b1e4f7/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/09b1e4f7/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:45:46 -0700<br>
From: "Frank Shields" <<a href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com">frank@compostlab.com</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID: <94298C56BD8E454688673782535895AF@cl.local><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Tom,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total<br>
weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will<br>
need to get over that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The IBI has some good test methods that I am now using. Measure pH, salts,<br>
etc on diluted samples are a few I have changed to. Methods for metal are<br>
acid digest and is what I have been doing along with most others. The CEC I<br>
would like to change to an AOAC procedure for peat. And the butane activity<br>
is left out. Going to iodine. I have been doing 450 deg for calcining temp<br>
but now raised it to their 600 deg as that is where I have found the butane<br>
activity is highest (600 to 650 deg C) for most biochar when plotting<br>
curves. But the loss in weight seems to stabilize at ~450 deg C. I was<br>
thinking if activity was not that important the lower temperature is all<br>
that is required.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
They use a C/H ratio to determine if the biomass is sufficiently charred<br>
where I was measuring loss in weight after re-charring at 450 deg C. My<br>
procedure has some real problems and was looking for other ideas. I think<br>
theirs may be better but still we need to keep looking as I am not sure it<br>
will weed out tars that would be removed in my procedure and different<br>
feedstocks may end up with different C/H ratios even when fully charred. So<br>
on it goes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I was looking into a TGA to do the testing but after sending in samples to<br>
Leco I was not real happy with the results. This can determine moisture then<br>
switch over to nitrogen atm and char at predetermined temperature then add<br>
air and ash at predetermined temperature all in one unite and cycle. This<br>
should work well. I had them char in nitrogen a sample at different<br>
temperatures thinking I would get a value that leveled off at 450 deg C as<br>
what I have found in my pipe system. But my pipe system seems to work<br>
better. Not sure if air was in their system when they ran it after drying or<br>
if biomass does change in weight more than I found over temperature<br>
differences with my pipes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank Shields<br>
<br>
Control Laboratories, Inc.<br>
<br>
42 Hangar Way<br>
<br>
Watsonville, CA 95076<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:%28831%29%20724-5422" value="+18317245422">(831) 724-5422</a> tel<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:%28831%29%20724-3188" value="+18317243188">(831) 724-3188</a> fax<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com">frank@compostlab.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.compostlab.com" target="_blank">www.compostlab.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_____<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf Of Tom Miles<br>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:29 PM<br>
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Test methods. Many oof the ASTM methods for biomass are coal methods that<br>
have been adjusted for biomass. Usually the calcining temperature of a<br>
sample for biomass has been reduced by ASTM fro the 900C used for coal to<br>
550C or 600 C for biomass.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf Of Frank Shields<br>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:06 PM<br>
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Paul,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The way I look at it;<br>
<br>
Biochar is not needed by the plant anymore than peat moss, perlite, sand,<br>
lime, gypsum etc. These are all materials used to change the texture of the<br>
soil. Better drainage, hold more water, make water more available, adjust pH<br>
that changes availability of nutrients, added porosity, add microbes that<br>
regulate the nutrients etc. If the biochar product adjusts one of these<br>
components to make the required constituents (water, nutrients, temperature<br>
etc) more optimum for the plant you will see a benefit. A lot of silica (as<br>
in rice hulls) may very well be the component that makes the change and the<br>
carbon fraction has nothing to do with it. Or it could all be from the<br>
carbon fraction or mixture of both. IMO it is important to determine the<br>
condition change that has created the increase in plant response. And the<br>
constituent of the biochar that has done it. Then we can determine the<br>
biochar quality that should be used on that specific site.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But I think we can agree that it's the carbon component we regard as<br>
important when talking biochar. If it's the silica in rice hulls making the<br>
difference we could just add something like sand. Being carbon as the<br>
important fraction biochar quality should be rated based on the carbon<br>
component. Not only carbon concentration but also the carbon structure (or<br>
we could just as well add organic matter). Carbon comes in a range of<br>
biological activity. Very reactive like green grass, sugars, oils,<br>
vegetative materials. Semi-reactive materials like wood chips, stabilized<br>
compost, biosolids and organics from aeration ponds, finished septic systems<br>
etc and very stabilized like plastic, biochar. Available carbon increases<br>
microbes. That in turn uses a lot of oxygen making soils anaerobic creating<br>
lots of problems. The reason we compost and have septic systems before<br>
letting high reactive organics into the environment. Because biochar claim<br>
to have a very stabilized carbon (non-available to microbes and oxidation)<br>
we need to measure to the degree the carbon is stabilized in addition to the<br>
concentration to rate and compare biochar products. Rice biochar has low<br>
carbon (not good) but likely high stability (good). And a unique structure,<br>
that in the right locations and soil type, could make all the difference.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It's the test methods that work best to determine the carbon concentration<br>
and properties that we need to sort out. Not an easy task thanks to people<br>
wanting to use coal testing methods for biochar. We need our own methods<br>
manual.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank Shields<br>
<br>
Control Laboratories, Inc.<br>
<br>
42 Hangar Way<br>
<br>
Watsonville, CA 95076<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:%28831%29%20724-5422" value="+18317245422">(831) 724-5422</a> tel<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:%28831%29%20724-3188" value="+18317243188">(831) 724-3188</a> fax<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com">frank@compostlab.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.compostlab.com" target="_blank">www.compostlab.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_____<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf Of Crispin<br>
Pemberton-Pigott<br>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:56 AM<br>
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Do you know if the char has been characterised well, or is it from the smoky<br>
stacks you described earlier?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
++++++<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank,<br>
<br>
Rice hulls biochar makes as excellent soil amendment, as numerous test have<br>
shown.<br>
Yields on rice, water spinach and other plants have increased roughly 3-fold<br>
in the trials that were done in Vietnam and Cambodia.<br>
If it is not the best biochar, I would be truly exciting to find something<br>
better.<br>
<br>
Paul Olivier<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/27399bab/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/27399bab/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:08:59 -0400<br>
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID: <0f0601cc959c$ab6324e0$02296ea0$@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Dear Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total<br>
weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will<br>
need to get over that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific meaning.<br>
I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is<br>
'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when the<br>
sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed'<br>
portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the<br>
fuel, not a property of the fuel alone.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with internal<br>
definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never really<br>
know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically<br>
been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of 'fixed<br>
carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value of<br>
anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, not<br>
of part of the fuel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that<br>
involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation.<br>
For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the fuel's<br>
heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing'<br>
increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in<br>
energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and calculate<br>
out the ash. Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you<br>
have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also<br>
investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many<br>
people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/17b76850/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/17b76850/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:13 -0500<br>
From: "Tom Miles" <<a href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,<br>
Issue 17<br>
Message-ID: <008f01cc95a2$7009e900$501dbb00$@com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Crispin, Frank,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Apart from fraud, it is nice to have a general indication of how much of the<br>
fuel will convert to a gas before burning and how much would, in theory,<br>
remain as char. IN practice you oxidize part of he "fixed" carbon as well.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In carbonization the volatile carbon is a useful indicator of the extent of<br>
carbonization. We look for volatile carbon to be less than 20% for most<br>
applications. That does not mean that all biochar needs to be less than 20%<br>
volatile carbon. Other measures of labile carbon would be helpful.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For biochar applications it would be useful to know how much of the carbon<br>
is likely to be consumed by organisms and will thereby have a demand on<br>
nitrogen or other nutrients. I have assumes that is the volatile fraction.<br>
How much char C do you include in calculating a C:N ration for composting,<br>
for example? If you intend to deliver a char to a uses that will supply<br>
it's own N how much to you have to add? How much char from stoves can you<br>
estimate will have a demand on plant nutrients if used as biochar?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf Of Crispin<br>
Pemberton-Pigott<br>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:09 PM<br>
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total<br>
weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will<br>
need to get over that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific meaning.<br>
I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is<br>
'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when the<br>
sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed'<br>
portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the<br>
fuel, not a property of the fuel alone.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with internal<br>
definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never really<br>
know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically<br>
been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of 'fixed<br>
carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value of<br>
anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, not<br>
of part of the fuel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that<br>
involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation.<br>
For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the fuel's<br>
heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing'<br>
increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in<br>
energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and calculate<br>
out the ash. Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you<br>
have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also<br>
investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many<br>
people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/379444d6/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/379444d6/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 52<br>
**************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>NOTE: PLEASE CHANGE MY ADDRESS TO <a href="mailto:TOMBREED2010@GMAIL.COM">TOMBREED2010@GMAIL.COM</a><br><br>Dr. Thomas B. Reed<br>The Biomass Energy Foundation<br>
BEF, BEC, BER<br><br>
</div></div>