<div dir="ltr">Hi Dale,<div><br></div><div>The Eneron pot clogged with soot quickly because the fins are so close together. Might work great with a super clean stove but not with a regular wood stove like a Rocket.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Dean</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Andreatta, Dale A. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dandreatta@sealimited.com" target="_blank">dandreatta@sealimited.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">All of Crispin’s comments are correct, and I suppose I should have included the mass of the pot and its energy gain to get the true energy transferred. Still, my view is that whether the Cajun pot is 16% better or 10% better than a regular pot, that’s not enough to get excited about. If someone want to redo the calculations I can send them the Word version of the report and they can edit it so that all the numbers are there.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I’ve attached a report about another finned pot, the Eneron Pot. This report covers 3 types of gas burners of the type used in restaurants. I chose to test the Cajun pot rather than the Eneron because I believed the Cajun pot would be very good, and the Eneron not as good. The first of these beliefs was wrong, so perhaps I should have tested the Eneron pot. Perhaps someone else would like to test it? With a couple quick tests you could probably determine whether it is promising or not. I might do that some day, as well as test variations of the Cajun pot. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">With regard to Ron’s questions, in my calculations I always included the evaporated water (except in the simulated open fire test where there was virtually no evaporation) but never the mass of the pot. The formula for energy gained by the water would be:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">(Mass of water times temperature gain times 4.186) + (Mass lost through evaporation times 2250)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Divide this number by the number of seconds elapsed during the test period gives you the power into the water in Watts. This works for high or low power, or the overall test, or any other length of time. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The estimated 700 Watts lost from the pot was not included in any calculations. I gave that number as a way of explaining why the ratio of times to boil was greater than the ratio of heat transfer efficiencies. As you approach the boiling point the net heat gain by the regular pot is about 1128 – 700 = 428. The net heat gain by the finned pot is 1227 – 700 = 527, or about 23% more. If you had a pot that produced 701 W of heat transfer it would approach the boiling point quickly and then take a reeeeeeeeeeealy long time to fully reach boiling. (It seems that half of my tests go this way!)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dale<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Ronal W. Larson [mailto:<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:34 AM<br><b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass; Andreatta, Dale A.<br><b>Cc:</b> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Cajun Rocket Pot Tested<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dale and Crispin:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> This is to try to close the gap a bit. Dale reports for his home gas range testing two differences in efficiency: 8.8 and 13.5 (the “knobby aluminum” over the steel). Crispin says the efficiency should be strongly modified by the materials and weight differences - which I can see makes sense.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> My problem is that playing around with Dale’s stated power levels ("<i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"TimesNewRoman","serif"">The power input to the regular pot was 1128 Watts, while that of the finned pot 1227 Watts, or 1.088 times as much."), </span></i><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRoman","serif""> I can’t see from the given data, how Dale got those power numbers. I think there should have been some water evaporated, but none is stated. Did the 700 watt number come in some way?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRoman","serif""> So, Dale, can you show the computations you used to get 1128 and 1227.? Adding in the specific heat of the pots (if you didn’t - and you might have) should help with better understanding both this geometry and the importance of including what Crispin wants to include.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRoman","serif"">Ron</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><div><div><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"TimesNewRoman","serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dear Dale</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">What a welcome report on a promising technology!</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I have several points that I’d like to raise which probably impact materially on your concluding numbers.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I am happy to see at the end a discussion of the thermal mass of the pots and the fact they have different materials and different masses. Because the tests were conducted to check the heat transfer efficiency and the overall fuel consumption (two different metrics) at high and low power (again, two different metrics) I feel it is important to put the thermal mass in context at the beginning then move to the other points.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The British, Indian, SeTAR and Indonesian heat transfer efficiency tests all consider the mass of the pot in the calculation. There may be many others – I have not read them all, of course. I would like to investigate the implications of this.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The work done heating the water (and the pot) is measured to the boiling point and includes heating the thermal mass of the water and the pot together. At the very end you mention the difference in in energy being 130,000 for the aluminum and 26,000 for the stainless steel pots. This 104,000 Joule difference should be applied to the portion of the test that involves changing the temperature, not the whole test because most of the time, there is no change in temperature.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The answers sought related to portions of the test, which are separately reported (good). If we take the change in temperature to be 80° C then the energy needed to heat the water (calculated on the same basis as the energy needed to heat the pot) is:</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">5000 g x 4.186 x 80° = 1,674,400 J</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The pots used respectively 26,000 and 130,000 (from your calculation)</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thus the two tests require 1,700,400 and 1,804,400 respectively for a difference of 1.061 in the heating work done. This means the improved pot was required to (and did) absorb 6.1% more heat during that portion of the test. Once the pot is hot, the impact of the pot mass disappears because the temperature is pretty much constant.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Because the pot mass was not considered in your calculation, the ‘additional heat gained’ number (the claim that all things considered, it gains heat more efficiently) drops from 16.1% to about 10%</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">10/16.1 = 0.62, 1-0.62 = 0.38 = 38% under-reported performance</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I think recalculating it to include the pot mass would materially affect the conclusions – i.e. that the difference in the calculated result is significant with a high degree of confidence.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">With respect to the determination of thermal efficiency at low power, the things being measured – missing mass of water and energy consumption – are not strongly correlated because, as you clearly explained, the losses of heat from the pot by routes<span> </span><i>other than evaporating water</i><span> </span>are large compared with the energy used for evaporating water. Very small changes in the local circumstances strongly affect the calculated result.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For this reason, there was some time ago a general agreement that ‘simmering efficiency’ is not really a helpful indicator because the calculated efficiency of a perfect simmer is 0% which is counter-intuitive to the claim of the method applied. If you changed the low power fuel burn rate, you will get a different low power efficiency at each power setting because it is a method that does not actually report the low power heat transfer efficiency (or the fuel efficiency).</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I predict, based on your numbers, that if you were to test the same pots using cold water on a low power flame, the heat gained by the finned pot would be of a similar order of magnitude larger than the standard pot as is shown above, i.e. the difference between 10 and 16.1.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The work done by the stove in heating the water can most accurately be measured when the water is not boiling for all the reasons you stated about conductive, convective and radiative losses. As we are testing the pot, not the stove or the fuel, it will be most accurate if the water and pot are heated from some temperature above ambient such as 30° (to ensure that the heat gain rate is continuous and stable) to about 70° above which point some evaporation can be expected, complicating the calculation and introducing the relative imprecision caused by a changing mass v.s. a changing temperature. Heat gain assessed by ÄT is about 500 times more accurate than assessing it by ÄM.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The presence of a lid ensures that the heat gained is collected and not lost to radiation or small amounts of water evaporating. The result, the temperature rise of a 20° pot from 30° to 70°, is a very good reflection of the gained by the pot and virtually eliminates errors.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I would be really interested to see the difference between these two methods reported for that very same pot, taking your set of experiments as a baseline. I predict that the improvement in heat gain, calculated from 30° to 70° and taking into consideration the pot material and mass, will show an improvement of about 16% for a steady state fire of any magnitude that you used.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Where my estimate will be wrong is the low power comparison because the baseline is not really a measure of heat transfer efficiency, but my estimate not it will not be as wrong as the baseline number.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As the finned pot is claimed to be for cooking with gas (as I understand it) only two need be need be performed for high and again for low power (one for each pot type).</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Because the heat transfer efficiency is not dependent on the mass of water in the pot, the water does not need to be exactly 5000 g if the pot mass is considered. This is important for testers to realise. This mass-independence was recently confirmed again by students at the China Agricultural University to a high degree of precision (four nines) across a wide range of ‘pot fullness’.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I find this knowledge really helpful for comparing stoves that do not deal well with such a large pot. Putting in 4 litres of 5, or 6 would not change the calculated heat transfer efficiency because it doesn’t measurably vary. But the pot mass must be considered if there is a change in water temperature.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If there are other experimenters in Stove Land who have finned pots it would be great to hear from them as well, comparing not only the different appliances, but the different calculation methods.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best regards</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Crispin</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">A few months ago we had a discussion of Cajun Rocket Pots, a series of pots with heat transfer fins on the bottom meant for cooking seafood in the Southern US. Their claim was that their pots reduce fuel use by 50% and reduce time to boil considerably. (The name “Rocket Pot” has nothing to do with the rocket stove.) I gave the opinion that their design was excellent and that it would revolutionize our cookstove work. All we had to do was test it on some stoves of the type we use and confirm that it works.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Alas, reality interfered. I got one of their pots, the 8 quart size. This is their smallest size and is appropriate for a 5 liter water boiling test. The finned pot performed only marginally better than a regular pot of the same size, typically by about 10%. Very disappointing. It’s possible that for certain types of stoves with certain shapes of gas burners the pot really does perform well, but it did not perform particularly well on any of the stoves I tested. </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I’ve attached a report with the test details of a finned and a regular pot being tested on 7 different stoves. Some stoves gave better results than others, but the 10% improvement is a typical number. </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dale Andreatta</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><Cajun Rocket Pot Report.pdf>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>