[Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves. Was RE: Henson CenterFiure Burner System
Richard Stanley
rstanley at legacyfound.org
Wed Jun 7 19:08:17 CDT 2006
Dear stovers,
The following two cents, on innovation and control and recognition
stems from Paul's good insights this morning...
As Einstein put it (and probably several others before him) you cannot
solve tomorrow's problems with todays thinking (--or something to that
effect) . This whole notion of ownership and intellectual property
rights is fast becoming outmoded in light of the very internet
mechanism we are now using to communicate. It is very likely that some
cave (or cavish) person invented the wheel and that another discovered
infrared reflectance, stack effect and pot scrubbing distances etc., in
observing/ grunting/ burning himself/ herself around a simple wood
fire.
That they did not patent it, much less articulate it in print, should
not have ever been a license for us to ignore the strength of their
experience and the lore which they directly or indirectly passed on to
us.
Instead we have now inherited this notion of protecting an idea as your
own, defending it in our courts, making sure that if you can just tweak
your idea a bit you can screw the other guy before he does you...great
system for one culture working within itself, for a while anyway...
Nowhowever, comes the internet : All of the sudden we have to figure
out how to keep our turf intact, while it is being exposed to everyone
and their uncle globally --and we do not have Gates' money or influence
to protect our ideas...
Now lest we fall into a "socialist mess" like all "them commies" did...
how does a good capitalist adapt to the emerging reality... How to
participate and get paid for it in an open source environment.
Does the word "Co-vent" with mutually agreed remuneration apportioned
according to one's participation/ skills, make any sense? Does it make
more sense to pre-plan distribution of the idea and the roles and the
expectations up front, or do we continue to try to protect defend and
play a rear guard action with beloved patents in the global reality of
the internet.
I can assure you that the silent masses of this planet will continue to
slip quite efficiently by the WTO in their own survival ethic of
adaptation and that the rest of us, the 20% odd, will never really be
able to squeeze them enough to force them to buy a finished product,
much less than an idea, when it can be adapted locally. They rarely
have the cash to buy it, they are nearly invisible from an
administrative tracking standpoint and they are generally incredibly
resourceful adaptors...
So how does the well intended innovator pro-actively adapt to this
reality: Share out your idea and get screwed or pay it to a lawyer to
protect it in which case the lawyer wins.
Our own experience has led us to a notion of "conditional sharing"
with the three caveats that they must 1) refer back to us and the
others we are working with and from whom we got the idea, 2)
contribute their experience in adapting it and 3) kindly agree to
becoming a referral for others as a resource person (as a private
consultant or gratis: Its up to them). No legal force here just a push
pull opportunity for the recipient. It works quite well actually --with
individuals and small groups.
So it goes. the 'conditional sharing' delivery system is far from
perfect but its a start in the new age of internet based development
assistance. Ideas on how to structure this--or not to structure it--are
most welcome... its just a work in progress....but one which affects us
all in the larger scheme of things.
R Stanley
a hollow core fire On Jun 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, psanders at ilstu.edu wrote:
> Dear Kevin,
>
> 1. I certainly DO give Lanny much and major credit. He is
> innovative, but he
> did not invent the central channel in combustion. He is much like me,
> and my
> T-LUD work is creative discovery by trial and error following some
> principles
> and experiences that come from others.
>
> And I do NOT take credit for the truly new aspects of Tom Reed's
> IDD/T-LUD
> invention, nor does Dean Still take credit for Larry Winearski's
> Rocket elbow
> invention. The T-LUD and Rocket technologies ARE inventions of unique
> combustion methods.
>
> The prototypes and manufactured configurations that implement those
> combustion
> principles can be innovative devices that move the technology forward,
> such as
> the WoodGas CampStove and the Champion Stove (T-LUDs) and the Onil
> Stove and
> many other variations of the Rocket technology. Even if the devices
> can be
> patented, they are dependent upon the original inventiveness of Reed
> and
> Winearski.
>
> 2. The rest you answered yourself when you wrote:
>> Well, why not start the acknowledgement process by agreeing to refer
>> to it as "The Henson Center Fire Burner System?" I would suggest
>> that any innovator who presents a "Burner System" that has 8 defining
>> characteristics such as you outline is entitled to recognition for
>> his contribution.
>
> The issue IS that it has so many (8?) defining characteristics. We can
> recognize this one specific configuration of a stove/combustion
> technology and
> call it "The Henson Center Fire Burner System". But if you take away
> 1 or 3 or
> more of those 8 characteristics (and even if saving the main ones that
> are more
> important), you would no longer have "The Henson Center Fire Burner
> System". But what it would have is a "central channel", and that
> places that "System" in
> the category with the "packed-sawdust central channel" stove and with
> the
> "biomass briquette with central channel" combustion.
>
> *****
>
> I can appreciate your defending of Lanny's creativity, but you are
> unfair if you
> think that I was putting him down or detracting from the quality of
> his work. Anyway, thanks for stimulating the discussion and giving me
> another opportunity
> to clarily what I wrote previously.
>
> Paul
>
> Quoting Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>:
>
>> Dear Paul
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul S. Anderson"
>> <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>> To: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
>> Cc: "alexis belonio - Philippines" <atbelonio at yahoo.com>; "Stoves"
>> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:08 PM
>> Subject: [Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves. Was RE: Henson
>> CenterFiure Burner System
>>
>>
>>> Stovers,
>>>
>>> I agree that Lanny has put something fresh into the options about
>>> stoves. I say
>>> "fresh" (as in a new perspective on something that exits) instead of
>>> "totally
>>> new" because central channels (centralized vertically in the fuel)
>>> is found in
>>> the packed-sawdust burners and in the holey briquettes of Richard
>>> Stanley, and
>>> probably elsewhere.
>>
>> So, what does he have to do, to get credited with a new system?
>> Please tell me what is "totally new" about the principles behind the
>> Rocket Stove, or the T-LUD. I would suggest that there is nothing
>> "new" about them. What they are is a very clever and practical
>> application of existing, fundamental, and well known principles.
>>>
>>> The defining characteristic is the central channel, and that is a
>>> generic
>>> descriptor of a fuel configuration for combustion. (Feel free to
>>> propose other
>>> names for the GENERIC descriptor of all such combustion devices with
>>> a central
>>> channel.) The specifics of the "Henson Center Fire Burner System"
>>> deserve
>>> recognition of the inventor, and I applaude Lanny for having led us
>>> all to
>>> examine central channel combustion. I hope that he will lead us all
>>> and will
>>> eventually produce a named stove that reaches the markets and the
>>> people.
>>
>> Lanny is a proven innovator. Lanny works for a living. Lanny is
>> obviously a generous person, giving to the list the results of his
>> discoveries and observations as he makes them. Lanny has presented
>> some very interesting concepts which I feel will advance the science
>> of Stoves. The Stoves List would be a better place if there were more
>> like Lanny participating in it as "givers". Why would you seek to
>> deny him a bit of well earned recognition by labelling his
>> contribution as GENERIC?
>>>
>>> What is fresh (innovative, new perspective) in what Lanny has
>>> accomplished is
>>> that the fuel is NOT packed tightly as in the two previous examples.
>>> Instead,
>>> a central channel is created by a structure (wire basket or
>>> highly-perforated
>>> cylinder) that prevents the fuel from collapsing into the central
>>> channel. This has several highly significant impacts on stove
>>> technology.
>>
>> So, what is wrong with calling such an innovative system that
>> provides such a new and fresh perspective on Stoving "The Henson
>> Center Fire Burner System?"
>>>
>>> 1. The fuel is relatively loose (not packed like the sawdust or
>>> briquette
>>> fuel).
>>>
>>> 2. Therefore, the liberated gases can move more easily through it,
>>> with
>>> preference (least resistance) toward the central channel where the
>>> heat of
>>> combustion can ignite these arriving gases, continuing to drive the
>>> upward
>>> movement of the air/gases, creating a lower pressure in the center,
>>> that favors
>>> drawing in more of the gases.
>>>
>>> 3. The fuel can be of many, many types of dry biomass provided that
>>> the
>>> openings in the basket/cylinder are sufficiently small to prevent
>>> much (some
>>> could be allowed?) falling through of the raw fuel. And still large
>>> enough for
>>> ash (not char) to fall through, perhaps if occassionally shaken or
>>> probed. Many
>>> types? How about everything from rice husks and loose sawdust to
>>> lumps of
>>> charcoal and perhaps even vertically placed long wood sticks. Corn
>>> cobs would
>>> be very good, as would wood chips and pellets and small-diameter
>>> briquettes
>>> (not the briquettes that are large and with a hole).
>>>
>>> 4. This device could be made to be continuous feed for continuous
>>> operation. (My example here is with the pot removed for refueling,
>>> but other ways could
>>> possibly let the pot remain in place.) The new fuel should probably
>>> be
>>> inserted downward and to the outside of the fuel container, thereby
>>> forcing the
>>> earlier fuel toward the bottom and toward the center. This could
>>> also assist in
>>> ash removal either through the central channel (be careful of
>>> up-draft carrying
>>> the ash up to the pot, so refuel when the primary air has been cut
>>> off for a
>>> couple of minutes), or downward through openings in the bottom of
>>> the "donut"
>>> of the fuel holder.
>>>
>>> 5. Even without refueling, the central channel keeps pulling the
>>> gases into it,
>>> leaving the outside walls of the fuel container relatively cool
>>> (adding much
>>> life to the metal of those walls). When the fuel does burn
>>> outwards, it is
>>> highly likely that the loose fuels will fall downward (especially if
>>> stimulated
>>> by shaking or probing), filling in the voids, and returning more to
>>> the burning
>>> (use of the oxygen in the available air) that is closest to the air
>>> flow in the
>>> central channel.
>>>
>>> 6. A major research question is the optimal diameter (or shape if
>>> conical or
>>> otherwise) of the central channel, with variables of fuel types and
>>> desired
>>> heat output.
>>>
>>> 7. Another question is the impact of placing "things" down into the
>>> central
>>> channel. Things could be flame spreaders or turbulance stimulators
>>> or flame
>>> retainers (wrong name, but you know what I mean), or even entrances
>>> for
>>> secondary air.
>>>
>>> 8. The central channel combustion is combustion where the making of
>>> the gases
>>> from the solid fuel is mixed in with the combustion of those gases.
>>> Therefore,
>>> it is NOT a gasifier in which the creation of the gases is able to
>>> be identified
>>> as separate in time and space from the combustion of the gases.
>>
>> Not to be argumentative, but what Lanny has configured in a raw form
>> is really a Side-Lit Updraft Gasifier, a S-LUD Gasifier Stove.
>>>
>>> 9. Could someone please explain and provide a contact for the
>>> statement made
>>> days earlier that
>>>>> Yes a number of examples have been posted now to which I will add
>>>>> the
>>>>> combustible tube tlud stove that someone here built. [snip]
>>>
>>> Although I am highly involved with the T-LUD technology, I have no
>>> knowledge of
>>> that is mentioned above.
>>>
>>> *************
>>>
>>> Personally, I will certainly be eventually making and examining the
>>> central
>>> channel combustion with loose placement of fuels, and I will always
>>> credit
>>> Lanny Henson with initial experiments and reporting that has brought
>>> this
>>> technology to our attention.
>>
>> Well, why not start the acknowledgement process by agreeing to refer
>> to it as "The Henson Center Fire Burner System?" I would suggest that
>> any innovator who presents a "Burner System" that has 8 defining
>> characteristics such as you outline is entitled to recognition for
>> his contribution.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
>>> Telephone: USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
>>> Internet site: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>>> For my gasifier stoves info, go to (below) and click on my name:
>>> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>>> contributions.html
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> http://www.bioenergylists.org
>
>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list