<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.yiv274273450tab
{mso-style-name:yiv274273450tab;}
span.tab
{mso-style-name:tab;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dear Ed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I first thank you for posting your comments to the Stoves groups and second for detailing the various points. I promise not to take anything too seriously or literally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You have mentioned efficiency in a number of ways and it is important that readers understand the different ways the word can be intended.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>“</span><span style='color:black'>Obviously these stoves lose efficiency compared to similar stoves which burn the fuel to ash.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is the one I was referring to. Combustion efficiency is usually a measure of the completeness of a carbon burn, or the ratio of the CO to CO2 in the gas stream. However for a stove that is burning either a low carbon fuel or deliberately not burning carbon in the fuel that is available for other reasons (in this case to retain the char) other metrics might be relevant such as the H2/H2O ratio because that is more plentiful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The heat transfer efficiency is of course related to the stove structure more than combustion efficiency (save in really poor flame conditions).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ed, the problem the stove group faces is that claims are being made, sometimes in error and sometimes craftily, that this or that stove can perform miracles – kind of like cars that get 200 MPG and 0-60 in 10 seconds.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would really appreciate it if your website helped the readers who will no be many, to keep in mind the way various efficiencies add up to the total fuel or energy. With respect to char-making stoves, there are two notable issues which I wll not detail by describe a little so you are clear what I mean.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The first are claims that a stove making char (whether a TLUD or other type) both ‘saves fuel’ and ‘yields char’. It is easy to calculate that this is very unlikely. Gasifiers and pyrolysers make char by not burning the fuel so the energy released os lower, but that does not necessarily mean it uses less raw fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The second is that the common test used for calculating fuel consumption, the WBT’s in their many forms, do not actually measure fuel consumption, they calculate a ‘specific fuel consumption’ figure. It is not the specific fuel consumption, it is a calculated number given the name ‘specific fuel consumption’ which is a different kettle of fish. The SFC is a re-expression of the energy released to make the thermal efficiency calculation – by <i>its</i> definition <i>not</i> the sum of the fuel burned or remaining unburned in the stove.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You have confirmed that you understand this point but many do not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So the usual claim to being ‘fuel efficient’ is often (usually) rooted in the SCF number and is not a measure of the fuel consumed. It may well use less energy to cook (usually does) but it has a second purpose. Thus saying it is more energy efficient should also in fairness to the uninitiated reader, include a caveat that the remaining energy remains in the unburned carbon, not unchopped trees.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Edward Revill<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:01 AM<br><b>To:</b> stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] biochar rocket stove<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id=yiv274273450><div><div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_39"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hi, I'm sorry to come in with a slow reply to Crispins comments, I was only recently made aware this comment thread.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_61"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_351"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>May I introduce myself to this group, my name is Ed and I am responsible for the pdf document 'biochar rocket stove' and for the web page on which it appears. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_203"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_208"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I find it strange, Crispin, that you tell people to dismiss the idea of using a biochar producing stove which can easily be brought indoors and left permanently in place under a flue pipe without the need for removing the stove to empty the biochar (unlike tlud or anila stoves) because you do not like the way I tried to write a general, brief introduction to the work which inspired me to build such stoves. Surely that is a bit like judging a song by the record sleeve. (do they still have record sleeves?)<br><br>Crispin, you say not to take this product as literally true. <br><br>Steve you are very welcome to come and see this product working for yourself, I will be very happy to feed you with a CO2 negative meal grown in biochar and cooked indoors in a biochar stove powered oven/hotplate that does not need feeding, emptying and lighting from the top and so is a permanent feature of my home, built into a cob wall. You can even have a CO2 negative shower! <br><br>I suggest you do not do not take Crispins advice as literally true because he has probably never used one before. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_231"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_233"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The point I am making is that I have been producing biochar in my home each time I cook, generate hot water or heat without needing to quench biochar or remove the stove unit to fill or empty it, using a simple system. You recommend that people dismiss this on a completely irrelevant point. I am writing this in the hope that anybody who read your recommendation for dismissal will look again. This anilaXrocket hybrid has a lot of advantages over both anila stoves and rocket stoves. This is the point I was trying to make in the pdf. I have been improving the design and running workshops (here on my market garden and at various other events) for over two years now and I am always pleased to demonstrate the various biochar stoves and heat capture devices I have made.<br><br>Just this afternoon I demonstrated a shower and cooker heated by a 'modified biochar producing anila X rocket stove hybrid' (does that sound better?) at the Swansea community farm. It is very efficient, it works, it produces biochar and can be used indoors because it remains under a flue pipe and does not need moving to feed, empty and light it.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_306"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_331"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I am not sorry if you do not like the name 'biochar rocket stove', feel free to call it what you want but again poor grounds to suggest that people to dismiss the idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_336"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_63"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>With regard to the criticisms you make, although they are not points central to the stove primarily described in the pdf, I am aware that there are a few sentences which could be written more precisely. I wanted to keep the wording brief and not use any jargon. The point I made about tlud stoves being more efficient than open fires of wood or charcoal I could have expanded to say;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_137"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>1 that effeciency depends on many variables and so I obviously made a generalisation.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_158"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>2 That tluds are generally more efficient than open fires of wood or charcoal for many reasons;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_372"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <span class=yiv274273450tab> i, the process of separating gases from the char and then blowing hot air into these gases at the point of combustion usually results in more efficient combustion than is found in most open fires.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_379"><p class=MsoNormal><span class=yiv274273450tab><span style='color:black'> ii, these stoves allow for more efficient heat capture and retention than open fires as the flue pipes can be run horizontally through a thermal mass.</span></span><span style='color:black'><br><span class=tab> iii, they allow for more efficient heat capture because the heat source is very close to where it is required, i.e. at the top of the stove</span><br><span class=tab> iv, they allow for more efficient heat capture because the stove contains and channels most of the heat </span>upwards to where it is required. (The heat from open fires is more dissipated.)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_400"><p class=MsoNormal><span class=yiv274273450tab><span style='color:black'> v, by burning the wood gases which are otherwise released as pollution or occasionally burnt in the charcoal making process, they are more efficient than charcoal burners.</span></span><span style='color:black'><br><span class=tab> vi, they can be built to the scale required </span>according to the amount of heat needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_708"><p class=MsoNormal><span class=yiv274273450tab><span style='color:black'>However, for the sake of brevity, I will leave the sentence as it is for now as it is not inaccurate and I hope to go into these points in greater detail at various points in the web page.</span></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_735"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_411"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Obviously these stoves lose efficiency compared to similar stoves which burn the fuel to ash. <br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yiv274273450yui_3_7_2_33_1350412542988_414"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>This pdf is part of a web site I am in the process of creating with a view to generate interest in growers and permaculture practitioners in the idea producing biochar from their domestic heating systems. Before you go through this web page listing all the small errors, could you kindly wait until after the winter. I use it to promote my business of running a market garden and of maximising soil carbon. I am very busy and hope to find time during the quieter winter months to complete, update and improve the site. However, I am always happy to receive suggestions of how it may be improved. <br><br>Best wishes, Ed.<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre><span style='color:black'>Dear Steve<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>That was an interesting excursion. To be brief, there are a great number of<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>technical misconceptions contained in the document<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><a href="http://www.soil-carbon-regeneration.co.uk/biochar/wp-content/uploads/2012/05">http://www.soil-carbon-regeneration.co.uk/biochar/wp-content/uploads/2012/05</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>/Biochar-Rocket-Stove-building-instructions.pdf so my advice is to try to<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>gain some knowledge from the general approach and from the unusual layout of<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>the product but not take it all as literally true. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>It is interesting that anything with a side feed is being termed a Rocket<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Stove. That rather undermines the actual Rocket Stove as a unique design, in<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>my view. I guess people will call it what they want.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>I have copied here a paragraph from a the document:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>The tlud<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Designed by Paul Anderson, the top light upward draught (tlud) gasifying<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>cook stove works on more than just one level. It is a very efficient cook<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>stove, producing a lot of heat from a small amount of wood. It is smokeless<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>and it produces biochar. Paul Anderson has also been instrumental in getting<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>these stoves distributed and used in developing countries where wood or<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>charcoal is otherwise used in conventional fires for cooking. By being more<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>efficient, less wood is needed. By being smokeless, diseases and deaths<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>caused by smoke in living spaces are reduced. By producing biochar,<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>subsistence growers are able to [maintain] soil fertility and improve soil<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>structure, biological activity and moisture holding capacity. Atmospheric<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>carbon is also being sequestered by the use of these stoves.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>So, I have some issues with some of this and because the whole list was<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>referred to it there is merit in correcting some of the impressions given.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>The TLUD was invented centuries ago as a way to burning with little smoke.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>The Romans used TLUD fires. A TLUD cooking stove may or may not be<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>‘efficient’ depending entirely on how well it transfers heat from the flame<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>to the pot and whether or not the remaining char( if any) is counted as<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>‘consumed by the stove’ or not. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>The heat produced by a TLUD is no greater than the heat released by burning<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>the same amount of fuel to the same extent in any other stove. That is, if<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>you gasify wood in some other device the heat is exactly the same. TLUD’s<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>are renowned for making lots of smoke when things are not working properly,<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>like in the beginning and at the end of a burn there can be lots of smoke.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Mitigation of this involves timely intervention by the cook. They are, after<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>all, smoke producing devices that then burn the smoke. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>You have no doubt seen Paul Anderson throwing a lit match into a smoke bomb<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>of a stove re-lighting the fire when it has blown out. I have done it myself<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>dozens of times. When they are running well, especially during the main part<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>of the burn, they are amazingly smokeless, like any other really good<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>biomass stove. I hope that the products evolve to the extent that they<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>really are smokeless.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Now, about ‘being more efficient’ and ‘using less wood’. I have been reading<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>a range of documents/comments on this matter and it is not at all clear what<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>is being claimed rather than inferred. If a stove is ‘more efficient’ then<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>we expect that it will use less input of raw fuel (fewer trees chopped). If<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>a stove uses the same amount of fuel and cooks while also producing char, it<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>is not ‘more efficient’ and it is not ‘using less wood’. Only by ‘actually<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>using less wood’ can a stove claim to be using less fuel, as far as I can<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>understand it, looking at the forest and counting the trees. We have had<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>several conversations here about whether a char making stove saves fuel, and<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>so far there are no clear indications that they do. There is no shortage of<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>claims that they do. They cook with less energy, but the input of fuel is<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>about the same because a lot of the energy in the original fuel is still in<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>the unburned char.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>To put some numbers on it (so it is not just a matter of opinion or<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>prejudice) if a stove produces 20% char, and cooks with the same thermal<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>efficiency as the baseline stove, then it definitely is using more fuel<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>because it will consume raw wood to make the char plus the same amount of<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>fuel to do the cooking.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>If a stove uses less energy to do the cooking (because it has a better heat<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>transfer efficiency) then the fuel saved might equal the fuel needed to<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>produce the char. If the fuel saved (through better energy delivery<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>efficiency) is least 40%, and 20% char is produced, that is more efficient<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>cooking but there is still no fuel saving at all.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>If the stove’s cooking efficiency was doubled compared with the baseline<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>stove, there is some 50% of the fuel left to turn into charcoal. How much?<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>At the most 45% of the mass. That would be remarkably good. So if half as<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>much fuel was used to cook and the remainder was turned into char, let’s say<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>½ of the remaining fuel emerges as char, how much fuel is saved? Zero %. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Why? Because ½ of the baseline amount of fuel is being used to cook, and the<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>other ½ is being turned into char. That is not a saving of fuel. It is<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>clever, it is cooking while making char, but it is not saving fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>So how does a TLUD save fuel and produce char at the same time? What are the<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>real numbers? I think the biochar promoters should lead on this point. They<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>must marshal their facts put numbers to the claims. If they don’t lead the<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>field, then those stoves and the char industry will be discredited by these<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>exaggerated claims.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Suppose a really well designed stove saved 75% of the fuel over a baseline<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>product. Suppose it also produced 25% char (based on the original dry mass<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>of fuel). How much fuel, chopped trees or grassy biomass, would be saved<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>(actual reduction in consumption)? <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>If you can calculate the answer to this question you are well on your way to<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>promoting a ‘fuel saving char making TLUD’ that will be believed. I, for<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>one, look forward to seeing such a stove.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>HI,<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> with regard the quoted exchange in post <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>Stoves Digest, Vol 25, Issue 21<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>"Aron:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i> Can you clarify your intended design? I know of no way that<o:p></o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i> you can turn a rocket stove into a char-making stove (but would<o:p></o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i> love to hear differently).<o:p></o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i> Ron."<o:p></o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>The following link is to an acquaintances site who has adapted the rocket<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>stove to gasify woody particles within the insulating jacket of the<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>combustion rocket elbow.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> I would be very interested to hear responses to this design approach.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><a href="http://www.soil-carbon-regeneration.co.uk/biochar/biochar-stoves-2/biochar-r">http://www.soil-carbon-regeneration.co.uk/biochar/biochar-stoves-2/biochar-r</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'>ocket-stoves/<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:black'> Steve<o:p></o:p></span></pre><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>