<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Todd cc list<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>First to say that you have a nice website. I first viewed a video on your Rocket product - and so was surprised at your web site to see several TLUDs. I would be most interested in test results where you could give us the char amount when the pyrolysis front has hit bottom. I presume easy to do. This would answer the question of what the “denominator equation” would produce for your efficiency under that scenario. I guess it would improve upon your presently identified 35% (Tier 3). More questions also below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">See below</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Todd Albi <<a href="mailto:todd.r.albi@gmail.com" class="">todd.r.albi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Crispin is correct. Running TLUD’s in efficient cook stoves produce little, if any char. </div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL1: Most TLUD advocates would not understand the “little char” comment. The question is whether your stoves</b><b class=""> could be labeled more efficient than 35% if the char was rescued.</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""> Our most efficient Super Dragon Fan Stove or Teg Fan Stove, or the Cook Air Fan grill we offer leave only small amounts of fine ash and have <i class="">no value producing char</i>. </div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL2: Have you any evidence that any of yourTLUDs that have been sold might have operated in a char-saving mode? To place the char in the ground as biochar?</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">In fact, one could contend that a cook stove that produces lots of char is actually impeding both ventilation and heat transfer to the pot.</div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL3: This is a new concept to me. Can you explain why this is so?</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Our natural draft Scout trekking gasifier and larger natural insulated Hunter chimney stove also leave primarily ash and extremely little char, the fuel is maximized for cooking, not char production. . </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class=""><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL4: No dispute on that for the way you are operating them. The question is what market might exist for operating the exact same TLUD stoves in a way to maximize char. I get the sense from your web site that your primary market is US. How many of your stoves are used in developing countries?</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">We’d contend efficient cooking and making char is two opposing value outcomes.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL5: No disagreement from me on this. When I started on this in about 1992, my sole motivation was to be able to avoid the wholesale destruction of forests to make charcoal. Still true, but now more emphasis on the climate side. I</b><b class="">n this country, I can’t make the forest saving argument, and really not the climate argument, but maybe the soil improvement argument for your US buyers might work.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I once talked to the Dutch developer of the Phillips stove. He only operated his (I believe daily) in a char-saving mode - although they are seldom advertised that way (being fan powered).</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>So in sum, I have no quarrel with anything you are doing or saying. But it would me mighty interesting to know whether you could beat your 35% efficiency number by not consuming all the produced char - in the very low power mode you describe on your site, after the high power start.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class="">Thanks for the added input. Good luck on your sales. Response next to the Crispin note you are responding to.</b></div><div><b class="">Ron</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Todd Albi, SilverFire</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span id="cid:ii_j83rsgdn0_15ec60f6787527fc"><Teg4.jpg></span><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank" class="">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" class="">
<div class="m_-8780856213232465839WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="">Dear Ron<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">></span></b><b class="">No one would ever want to run a TLUD without making char. They do horribly in combusting the char. <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Our experiences differ. We received stoves for testing the in CSI Pilot in Central Java that not only made char then burned it and the char could be forwarded to the next replication of the cooking sequence. Stoves that could do that were,
according to the rules of engagement, tested with a fuel load that included recycled fuel from a previous burn, during all evaluations. Fuel consumption is the requirement for additional fuel sourced outside the cooking system needed to replicate a cooking
sequence in any of a series of identical replications, save the first. The ‘save the first’ refers to stoves such as the TLUD’s that can burn charcoal, which can use remnant fuel in the next replication of the test. All stick-burning stoves were tested in
this manner as well, if they could use partially combusted fuel.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The lab staff in Yogyakarta, in spite of the relative simplicity of the lab, were able to get very tight groupings of test results even though the ‘forwarded fuel’ varied a bit in mass and composition.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">It can be argued that the correct assessment for such a series of test replicates is to average the entire set into a single result, rather than ‘averaging’ the averages produced individually for each test. I favour this approach as it
has a sound logical basis.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">PL >><span style="color:#1f497d" class="">I am not certain of the physical meaning of the (1-e2) equation.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-8780856213232465839apple-tab-span"> ></span><b class="">[RWL6: I hope you will try to learn of its importance. (Essentially important only in tier rankings.) <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tier ranks have nothing to do with that equation. The formula is a postulate with no sound physical basis. That is why no examples could be found outside the WBT using it as an efficiency calculation. Please refer to Tami’s recent categorical
re-statement of her message earlier this year.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is only ‘important’ to those who wish a 25% efficient stove to be reported as having an efficiency of 50%. It is more important that such pseudo-science be stopped in its tracks.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Regards<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Crispin<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p>
</font></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class="">
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr class="">lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>