<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=auto bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Jock</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>You bring up some excellent
points!</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jg45@icloud.com href="mailto:jg45@icloud.com">Jock Gill</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 22, 2013 10:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for
complete sets of raw dataof cookstove tests.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Kevin,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If one type of device [technology] requires champagne fuel, stick wood
for example, but another device can use 'waste', should that not be accounted
for? If one device type promotes deforestation by consuming stick wood,
but another technology reduces the risk of deforestation, should that not be
in the plus column for the technology that reduces the risks of
deforestation?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># Very good points! I would first make a
distinction between "stickwood" and "split log wood". For example, a Rocket
Stove can burn "stickwood" from shrubs or brush that will never turn into a
forest, as well as "split logwood" from "forest trees." On the one hand, it
would not contribute to deforestation, but when it burns split logwood, it
could. In either case, the greater its efficiency and the less the char
production, the less will be its stickwood or "split logwood requirements to
"get a given cooking/heating job done." Obviously, the ability of a stove to
burn "waste" is an advantage to the User, in terms of lower (or no) cost for
fuel, and a probably reduced de-forestation benefit. If the stove will burn
the "waste" to completion (ie, no residual char), then this would result in
least input fuel consumption. However, there is a case where the production of
residual char can be advantageous... the char may be able to be sold to
others, or it may be used as a beneficial soil additive. I would suggest that
it is up to the User to decide if he wants a stove that produces char or not.
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT
face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Using twice a much champagne fuel is, of course, a real problem.
But using twice as much previously discarded waste as feedstock is a
real plus. ESP. If we factor in the economic value of increased crops - which
pure combustion devices can not offer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># In the case where: a: The User has access to
such a "waste" fuel at low or no cost, and b: he has a valuable use for the
char and ash, then I agree "the more he burns and the more the char and ash he
produces, the better." On the other hand if the User had no use for the ash
and char, he should get an efficient "full burn stove", simply to reduce the
need to replenish his fuel bin, and to reduce the need "take out the waste ash
and char."</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Not all units on your list use the same fuels or are limited to a narrow
range of fuels. How do we Give credit to TLUDs that can use a wide range
of fuels, not just stick wood, which is a prime example of a champaign
fuel?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># There is a place for the TLUD stove system...
where the User wants cooking/heating and char production in one
system.</STRONG> <STRONG>There are many different "full combustion", "char
making" and TLUD stove systems. A test protocol that shows the input fuel
requirements to accomplish a given cooking/heating task, and which measures
and reports the amount of char produced will enable the Customer to
decide which "stove system" fits best with his "site specific circumstances".
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># One thing that concerns me about TLUD char is
the recent revelation that "low temperature char" seems to be better for soil
building than would the "medium" or "high temperature" char that could be
produced by TLUD's. There may be a need to re-design TLUD's to produce a low
temperature char that is optimal for use as biochar. It appears that much
further work needs to be done to determine if TLUD's can produce a char that
is optimal for soil building.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Do we not have to use systems thinking approaches that take ALL of the
factors in the whole system into consideration, not merely some arbitrarily
selected sub-set?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># Agreed 100% about the "systems approach" and
"whole system considerations." However, I feel that there is no such thing as
a "one stove fits all" systems. For example, in a location where it is highly
advantageous to produce char for resale, the "Grandma" may want a stove that
needs least fuel input and has least ashes and char to dispose of, while her
Son may want a stove that maximizes char production in the course of cooking,
as a "money maker." Enlightened Stove Producers would make a range of stoves
to cover most of their potential Customer's requirements. Appropriate stove
testing protocols would enable the Customer to select the stove system that
was best for his "site specific needs."</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is not good science to arbitrarily select some sub-set of factors to
tilt the outcome in favor of one particular technology. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># I would say "Definitely not." Rather, tell the
truth, and give the Customer the right to decide what is best for him.
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> Frankly, combustion got us into the mess we are in and is unlikely
to get us out. Pyrolysis might help get us out of the
environmental mess we are in, but this is not a certainty.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># While some of us have AGW concerns, others
don't have the luxury of thinking about the longer term. Their concern may be
as fundamental as getting enough fuel to cook meals or sterilize water for
today. Let the Customer decide what is important to him. It is not fair
to burden the Third World with the cost of alleviating AGW problems caused by
the first world.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Happy Earth Day!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># We all win with a better
Earth!</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Curious.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>Jock Gill</DIV>
<DIV>P.O. Box 3</DIV>
<DIV>Peacham, VT 05862</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Cell: (617) 449-8111</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>:> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Sent from my iPad</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Kevin <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1: Would you agree with the following
statements?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>a: A "Stove" is a device with the primary purpose of
heating and/or cooking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>b: A "Retort" is a device with the primary purpose of
producing char and pyrolysis gases</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>c: A "Gasifier" is a device with the primary purpose
of converting a solid fuel into a fuel gas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>d: A "Mixed Function system" (such as a TLUD) is a
device that provides both a heating and/or cooking function plus
residual char.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2: If you agree with those basic definitions, would
you not agree that a device attempting to do "2 jobs in one" cannot do
either job as efficiently or effectively as if the device was designed
to do "one job the best?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>3: Would you agree that the Customer who buys the
"device" should have the benefit of "true science based tests" that
are repeatable by others?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>4: Would you agree that the Customer is the one who
decided whether or not he should purchase a "mixed feature device" that
produces char, but requires more fuel input, in contrast to a Stove that
requires less fuel input for the same cooking and/or heating
effect?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>5: Would you agree that the testing protocols for the
above "devices" should be such that the Customer should be able to compare
the various devices and then select the "device" that best meets
his wishes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin Chisholm</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR><BR></DIV></DIV>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<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">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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>Stoves
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>to Send a Message to the list,
use the email address</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>to
UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>