<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23562">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Dear Richard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>From: "Richard Stanley" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>rstanley@legacyfound.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:38 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Subject: Re: [Stoves] Cuber and size of
densifying machines. (no longer Re:The wood and char and fuel "debate"
)</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><BR><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Kevin,<BR> I make no claim to clear typing
but "fertigation" ?<BR>It sounds like a contraction of fertilization and
fumigation: What sayest thou?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri># "Fertigation = Fertilizer +
Irrigation"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Didn't recall any mention of it but before
passing it on, my own question to Crispin and now, yourself, about purity
and safety (viz wash water concentrate ) resides…</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri># I have never worked with Yak, Camel or Cattle
Dung, but the wash water would be of "equal hazardousness to the manure or dung
from which it was made". It should be no more hazardous than handling unwashed
dung to make shaped fuel products. The "washed dung" should be safer to handle
for subsequent handling and ptocessing into "fuel shapes" than unwashed
dung, in that the solubles have been removed from it. Such wash water solubles
would contain proteins, macro and micro nutrients, etc, and many of the
pathogens associated with the manure. The "washed residue" would be mainly
lignin, with little to no cellulose, in that it would have been digested by tehe
ruminant. However, after washing, it would still contain some of the bacteria,
viruses, and other life-forms that were associated with the dung, but to a far
lesser degree. This "high lignin washed dung" should make an excellent fuel,
with a much higher calorific value than the "starting dung" or even "new wood."
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Kevin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Richard<BR>Below, off the report to
Relief International's the Somali project, is Francis and Mary's own collection
which includes the camel dung variety. <BR><BR>These folks are probably two of
the best trainers in Kenya if anybody wants training for a group
there.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT></P><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>
<HR>
</FONT>
<P></P><BR><BR><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>On Mar 7, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Kevin C
wrote:<BR><BR>Dear Richard<BR><BR>I am quite pleased to see Francis and Mary
upgrading dung fuels by washing out the solubles.<BR><BR>Do they use the "dung
wash water" for fertigation purposes, as I suggested 5 or 6 years
ago?<BR><BR>Have you made any "holey briquettes" with the washed dung?<BR>(
Holey shit briquettes :-)<BR><BR>Best
wishes,<BR><BR>Kevin<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Quoting Richard Stanley <</FONT><A
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>rstanley@legacyfound.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>>:<BR><BR>> Nolbert,<BR>> <BR>> Our own knowledge of
using animal manure as a solid fuel is limited to briquetting it. It comes
from Francis and Mary Kavita in rural Kenya (Miumbuni village in the former
Makweni district ~2hrs east of NBI off Mombassa road). I copy this to them but
also will tell you or others interested in communicating with them directly to
be patient: They receive email only a hand transcribed snail mail posted letter
out through the son in NBI<BR>> <BR>> Francis and MAry are the real
masters of the craft of using cow dung in Masainni at least out in the Mara, and
camel dung up in Somalia– and a few other dung varieties in between. The process
they developed is brilliant in its simplicity and ease of replication anywhere:
They simply wash out, read, stir the dung around in a tub of water, decant the
water, re fill with fresh water, stir some more decant (Francis mentioned that
usually two or three cycles are enough), until the water in the tub of
washed dung becomes clear. what remains of the dung, is a fiber/seed and
crumb rich composite for blending into a briquette by itself or with in
fillers of your choice to the extent tha the mass molds easily in your
hands (ie., it takes a "set" in your hands without acting spongy).
The combination tends to make a nice clean odorless fuel if your added infiller
itself combusts well too ) .<BR>> I do not know how this will work in pellets
but it produces a pretty clean burning fuel.<BR>> <BR>> But I am lazy:
Please try that idea in pellet form and teach the rest of us what you have
learned.<BR>> <BR>> Tulabagane ssebo,<BR>> <BR>> Richard<BR>>
<BR>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Nolbert Muhumuza wrote:<BR>> <BR>>
Mr. Bjarne Laustsen,<BR>> <BR>> We have a 2-3 commercial briquette
producers in Uganda. One particular<BR>> company gave us an excellent sample
for our Quad gasifier stoves.<BR>> However the quality soon deteriorated (for
two subsequent supplies),<BR>> they became un-burnable in the gasifiers. They
were very smoky, picked<BR>> up moisture quite easily. So we had to dry them
a day before cooking<BR>> each meal.<BR>> <BR>> Reason was variations
in feedstock mixtures, due to infrequent<BR>> supplies. These guys drive all
around the country collecting biomass<BR>> feedstock, so they surely couldn't
maintain a steady and consistent<BR>> supply of feedstock which affected
their final product. The other<BR>> company added chicken droppings, which
also made the briquettes smoky.<BR>> <BR>> Dr. Paul Anderson once picked
high density (only wood shavings) from<BR>> Zambia, they were
excellent.<BR>> <BR>> Hope you put some of these issues in consideration
as you prepare to<BR>> use briquettes in gasifiers.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,
Nolbert.<BR>> <BR>> 2014-03-06 10:32 GMT+03:00, Bjarne Laustsen
<</FONT><A href="mailto:bjarne@kiwlau.com"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>bjarne@kiwlau.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>>:<BR>>> To Paul and others<BR>>> Fuel supply can be
big business but it does not need to be.<BR>>> We have been making pellets
for gasification stoves.<BR>>> The pellets in itself work very well if
they are in sizes from 6 mm or 8<BR>>> mm in diameter, they have been
burning very good in our gasification stoves.<BR>>> The problems in
relation with pellets for gasification stoves are how to<BR>>> find good
and sustainable pellet presses for producing the pellets.<BR>>> The slides
from the presentation from Crane Wang MUYANG illustrate this<BR>>> very
well. Because the pellet press they shows are big and expensive<BR>>>
equipments that will do a good job, however they are outside the<BR>>>
financial reach of most of us.<BR>>> We have experiences with some of the
smaller and cheaper pellets mills,<BR>>> and they are not able to produce
pellets in a sustainable way. They are<BR>>> designed for feed pellet
production, and they aretherefore not able to<BR>>> produce fuel pellets
in an economical way.<BR>>> <BR>>> I have noted that in China they
are mainly working with pellets for fuel<BR>>> production while in India
they are working with briquettes.<BR>>> <BR>>> For me to see the
cuber will still be an to expensive solution.<BR>>> <BR>>> The
solution for us will be to use the Indian type of mechanical piston<BR>>>
briquette presses that can make briquettes with diameter of 60 mm
and<BR>>> get attached a puck cutter on that so the briquettes are cut out
in<BR>>> pucks. Such pucks will be a good fuel for gasification stoves.
And the<BR>>> equipment is reasonable in price so it is possible for many
to finance<BR>>> such a solution.<BR>>> <BR>>> These briquette
presses can work with most types of agricultural<BR>>> residues, so we at
the same can shift to using renewable biomass for<BR>>> cooking and in
this way also contribute to reducing the deforestation.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Bjarne Laustsen<BR>>> <BR>>> On 3/5/2014 10:47 PM, Paul Anderson
wrote:<BR>>>> Stovers,<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Slide #9 of the
presentation at the site given below is interesting.<BR>>>> Those cubes
should work very well in gasifiers of many different sizes.<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> I was impressed by the other slides that show the very large
sizes of<BR>>>> the pelletizers and cubers. If supply of
raw materials is<BR>>>> sufficient, large machines seem so much more
appropriate than 100 or<BR>>>> 1000 small units. Fuel
supply is BIG business.<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Paul<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson,
PhD<BR>>>> Email: </FONT><A
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>psanders@ilstu.edu</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>>>> Skype: paultlud Phone:
+1-309-452-7072<BR>>>> Website: </FONT><A
href="http://www.drtlud.com"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>www.drtlud.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>>>>
<BR>>>> On 3/5/2014 9:58 AM, Energies Naturals C.B.
wrote:<BR>>>>> Hello Michael,<BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>> .....<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> We saw some
examples of cubers in a Beijing(?) stove exposition some<BR>>>>>
time ago.<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> Also check
this:<BR>>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.novator.se/bioint/BPUA12Pres/10_BPUA12_Crane_Wang_MUYANG.pdf"><FONT
size=4
face=Calibri>http://www.novator.se/bioint/BPUA12Pres/10_BPUA12_Crane_Wang_MUYANG.pdf</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4 face=Calibri>>>>> <BR>>>>> Hope this
helps<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> Rolf<BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> <BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:36:47 -0600<BR>>>>>
Michael Mahowald <</FONT><A href="mailto:memahowald@hotmail.com"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>memahowald@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>>
wrote:<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>>> You are absolutely correct
Paul !<BR>>>>>> Deforestation happens all over the world with the
lack of fire wood.<BR>>>>>> There simply is not enough dry
sources of trees or waste from them<BR>>>>>> even for TLUD's to
keep even poor consumers interested in them.<BR>>>>>> We know
vetiver grass has the highest photosynthetic activity of
any<BR>>>>>> plant, making it the most renewable energy source on
the planet.<BR>>>>>> We just have to densify the grass into
pellets at a cost that people<BR>>>>>> can afford. The only
way we can do this is to eliminate the cost of<BR>>>>>> diesel
fuel to run the generator to make the pellets.<BR>>>>>> We are
planning on using a downdraft gasifier for gas to
accomplish<BR>>>>>> this. We just have to perfect this
process and size it for a<BR>>>>>> portable pelleting plant that
can be taken to the fields they grow it.<BR>>>>>> When we perfect
this it will be capable to work everywhere in the<BR>>>>>> world
that needs clean cook stoves.<BR>>>>>> If you want to see what we
are doing check out<BR>>>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/grass-energy"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/grass-energy</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4 face=Calibri>>>>>> and </FONT><A
href="http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/sustainable-path-on-how-to"><FONT
size=4
face=Calibri>http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/sustainable-path-on-how-to</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4 face=Calibri>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> Michael E.
MahowaldPresident<BR>>>>>> Haiti Reconstruction
International952-220-6814<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> Date:
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:43:31 -0600<BR>>>>>> From: </FONT><A
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>psanders@ilstu.edu</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>>>>>> To: </FONT><A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>; </FONT><A href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com"><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>biochar@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>>>>>> Subject: [Stoves] The wood and char and fuel
"debate" (was a long<BR>>>>>> time ago called Re: Request for
technology proposals - Clean Stove<BR>>>>>> Initiative,
Indonesia)<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>
Dear Crispin, Ron and all,<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> It is interesting reading
the back and forth between Ron
and<BR>>>>>> Crispin. I
emphasize two paragraphs from Crispin,<BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
On 2/24/2014 10:10 AM, Crispin Pembert-Pigott wrote:<BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>
There<BR>>>>>>
is no dispute between us whatsoever as to the
energy<BR>>>>>>
consumption: the energy remaining in the char
represents<BR>>>>>>
energy not liberated from the fuel
consumed.<BR>>>>>>
The<BR>>>>>>
important question is not what we want, but what
the<BR>>>>>>
customer of the test result wants. They are not asking
how<BR>>>>>>
much energy was used when cooking, they asked how much<BR>>>>>>
fuel<BR>>>>>>
was consumed. The answer is of course different if<BR>>>>>> there
is<BR>>>>>>
char remaining and that char is not 'fuel' to the same<BR>>>>>>
stove<BR>>>>>>
for the next
fire.<BR>>>>>>
For the vast majority of "customers"<BR>>>>>> (including
governments that<BR>>>>>> want to reduce or
reverse deforestation), the important<BR>>>>>> question
is<BR>>>>>> "how much wood is
burned." The interests are highly related
to<BR>>>>>> WOOD, specifically related to
TREES, not even counting sawdust<BR>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>> goes into
pellets.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> So, because TLUD stoves are VERY GOOD
at burning NON-wood biomass,<BR>>>>>> the wood
saved can be 100%. And we still get the
char.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> Concerning fuel and wood and non-wood
and char and other such<BR>>>>>> measurements,
the real problems can come from rankings and<BR>>>>>> Tiers
and<BR>>>>>> o<BR>>>>>> ther
reports that could give excellent stoves some poor
results<BR>>>>>> because the "authorities" are
defining fuel as being exclusively<BR>>>>>>
wood, as in trees and woodlands that need to be
protected.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> If we could get past that "imposed
intellectual construct" of fuel<BR>>>>>> being
wood, we could make more progress about some types of<BR>>>>>>
biomass<BR>>>>>> stoves being even better than
good for the environment.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> Rest assured that the advocates of
alcohol and kerosene and other<BR>>>>>>
NON-biomass fuels are pointing out that their stoves help
minimize<BR>>>>>> deforestation/enviromental
degradation.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> Biomass that is NOT WOOD needs to be
recognized as being favorable<BR>>>>>> for
saving trees, and credit given to the stoves that can
use<BR>>>>>> those<BR>>>>>>
non-wood biomass fuels.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> AND that recognition and credit needs
to be EXPLICITLY STATED<BR>>>>>> IN
THE<BR>>>>>> REPORTS ABOUT FUEL
CONSUMPTION.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> In some ways, this is all just
another discussion about why the<BR>>>>>>
reported results of any stove testing need much explanation
(which<BR>>>>>> is usually not provided) and
why the results are so easy to ignore<BR>>>>>>
as being poorly related to the realities of people and
their<BR>>>>>> stoves<BR>>>>>>
and their fuels.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> I hope we can do better in the
future.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>> (still another
week to go on my vacation trip to
Brazil,<BR>>>>>> so I probably will not be
sending replies.)<BR>>>>>> <BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>