[Stoves] Which technologies will best reduce CO and black carbon, improve health and safety and lower household energy costs?

Tue Sep 12 02:50:07 CDT 2006

Tom,

I made a „Milchmädchenrechnung“ (word by word: dairymaid’s-calculation). But
if you do the RHC (Retained hear cooking) serious like Frans Peeters
proposes; and he proposed (and he makes test dish cooking with Duard-vessel)
low-temperature cooking, I think the 50% fuel-saving can be real; not so
with less sophisticated equipment. 

But there is another fact to be considered:

If fire is speeded up quickly, heat transfer is good and there is no need to
reach the boiling point. You are not pressed to know the exact needed amount
of fuel in advance. I mean an amount of fuel which is burnt completely by
speeding up to only low-cooking temperature. -There is no exceeding vapour. 

When you hold this temperature in a RHC, -it must not be the cooking stove
itself, you save fuel, because there is never “rest-fuel” for the sky.

Or if fire is not burnt out, there can be done other cooking activities,
while RHC works. That would not be possible if “simmering” within the stove
is required. With RHC simmering possibilities are not so important, even
they are very difficult to reach, in the real lowest needed amount

.

Considering this procedure, low mass stoves and “splendid isolation” are
extremely important to reach the last saving percents.

But I argue, that saving the last possible percent, is not the normal way of
life and not the way nature works. (-because that small percent is in nature
sense for reasons, we see when we have saved and see then, that is had not
been useful in another sense. (e.g. small amount of sooth makes visible
fire)

Martin

  _____  

Von: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. September 2006 23:25
An: 'Boll, Martin Dr.'; 'Stoves-List'
Betreff: RE: Which technologies will best reduce CO and black carbon,improve
health and safety and lower household energy costs?

Martin and all,

If cooking requires approximately 1 kg wood per person per day how much wood
is saved by RHC? 0.30 kg wood?

Tom

  _____  

From: Boll, Martin Dr. [mailto:boll.bn at t-online.de] 
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:38 PM
To: Stoves-List
Cc: 'Tom Miles'
Subject: Re: Which technologies will best reduce CO and black carbon,improve
health and safety and lower household energy costs?

Dear Tom

And all disputants

I voted for retained heat cooking. (This is only one part of vote nr.3 and
not mentioned by word in the voting list!)

1. There are most of all people eating rice, excellent for RHC
(Retained-heat Cooking).

2. Most “cooking on boiling point is waste of energy” (words from Frans
Peeters). We don’t speak from typically high temperature cooking-methods.

3. Low temperature cooking is healthy.

4. RHC can be done easily. (Dress your cooking-pot with a sweater, when you
cook “advanced” with electricity). Otherwise, speed up temperature nearly to
boiling point, with a fast burning fire, which can die even fast.
(“shortage” of fuel to ran out of fire when no more needed). Put the pot
directly into the RHC-cooker. (e.g. Sheep- or bear-skin, pillow,
cotton-balls, rock-wool, soaked and form-dried paper, wood-shavings, real
hey, ). Construction-material is everywhere and cheap.

5. If needed speed up temperature with a tea-candle/s or other small energy
source. The technically/trimming -version: You can even speed up temperature
with a home-trainer, which is able to produce electricity, and feed a light
bulb! 

6. Simmering time of rice +/- 25 minutes. That is 5 times 5 minutes, the
time to bring to cook. Take the turning down ratio of a stove 1 to 5
(friendly seen). Simmering consumes possibly roughly the same energy as
temperature speeding up to boil. We have to discuss about roughly 50%
energy-saving. 

1. smile,

2. think,

3. try, 

4. discuss,

5. decide

I bet at least 50 people (totally) voting. (By loss, I will construct a
simple cooking-stove with tea-candles, turning down ratio 7 to 1)

Martin