[Stoves] Issues for comparing stoves, and Stove Camp experiences

[Paul S. Anderson]

Stovers,

Good discussion on the issues of stove testing.

Tom Miles wrote to Dean, and I  TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS:
Ø	I understand your intent and appreciate your good work. I like
Ø	the direction but we still need to apply rigorous testing and
Ø	evaluation criteria so that the results are meaningful.

Dean had written earlier::
Ø
> We are not doing anything to favor the rocket, Tom. I think it odd that you
> would suggest it.

Sorry Dean, but you do favor the Rocket.  All of us who are stove developers
somewhat favor our particular creations, just like all of human nature having
preferences for what the person knows best, be it family or profession or food
types or even stoves.  The issue is:  Are you favoring the Rocket to the
detriment of other stoves.  Probably not too intentionally, but you have
obligations to Larry W, and to Shell Foundation, and to Aprovecho staff, and to
yourself.  These WILL get in the way.  At the four Stove Camps (SC) I have
attended, the prominence of the Rocket stove (especially in introductory
materials to the newcomers like the students) far outweighs the attention to
the other stove types.  You do try to compensate somewhat, such as giving me
some time about the gasifiers.  I thank you for that.  But it is your home turf
at Aprovecho, and I and the others are guests.   We thank you for hosting SC,
but please recognize that you do favor the Rocket.

Others wrote about the fuel used for testing at Aprovecho.  Frank defended your
approach concerning standardized factors (incl fuel) and changing only one
variable at a time.  That is good methodology, BUT at Aprovecho there is not
much testing of the Rocket stove with changes in the variable called fuel. 
(Granted there is recent work  on the changes in Moisture Content (MC), and for
that the stove type is standardized, and it  is a Rocket stove used in the 
testing.  --  which is fine with me for that MC research).  At Aprovecho there
is no evident recent (four years of SC, and probably much longer)
experimentation IN A ROCKET STOVE with fuel that is not the “official wood”
(kiln-dried Douglas Fir cut in uniform pieces).  You favor a fuel that you know
works very well in the Rocket stoves.  In fact, the Rocket stoves are adjusted
in response to testing using one specific fuel.

As Frank suggests, hold all other variables constant in the Rocket stove, and
put in the following suggested types of fuels:  Douglas Fir natural branches of
various  thicknesses;  DF limbs that are cut only with an axe/hatchet;  other
types of wood in natural shapes, or even saw-cut other wood to the sizes of the
DF official wood..  I would suggest that such experiments would be done “in
house” because publishing the results could be quite upsetting to the issue of
meeting benchmarks for emissions and efficiencies.

I have seen Improved Cookstoves (ICS) using stick-wood (therefore including
numerous Rocket stoves) in use in various locations in Bolivia, Mexico, Brazil,
Nicaragua, India, USA, Cambodia, southern Africa, and China.  I have NEVER seen
the feeding of the fuel to be remotely similar to the feeding of the official
wood at evenly spaced intervals into the units tested at Aprovecho.  I have
frequently seen pieces of fuel that I would consider to be too large being
shoved into Rocket holes where the fuel-support-plate has been burned out or
intentionally removed.  Education is (part of) the answer.  But so is some
research back at the home headquarters using more realistic naturally occurring
pieces of stick-wood.   I seriously hope that results of such tests are
favorable for usage of Rocket stoves, but I suspect the results will be
unfavorable.

Linking these above paragraphs, the Rocket stoves have been favored in every
report where the testing is based on the official fuel.  Benchmarks are being
set.  Other stoves are being judged against the idealized Rocket.

Dean correctly calls attention to the wonderfully improved results from the
Philips fan stove (with trickle-feeding of the fuel) and the Karve gasifier.  I
will be personally testing the Karve gasifier here in India in the coming month.
 I hope that it works well and that I can learn from it and incorporate its best
features into my stove work here, but I can say that it has some distinct
differences from the gasifiers made by Tom Reed and by me.

In another recent message, Dean wrote to Crispin:
As you may remember, when we were testing the Vesto I repeatedly
asked you to come to the lab to run the tests. We try to carefully learn how to
run stoves before testing them. Having the inventor run the stove gives it the
best chance to succeed as Paul Anderson knows from testing frequently at
Aprovecho with all kinds of biomass.

Since I am named in the above paragraph, I will comment on those experiences:
I have been to Stove Camp (SC) for the past 4 years.

In SC 2004, the emissions hood was being installed and tested by Tami and Damon
and others, so we did not do any emissions testing.

In SC 2005, I presented what is now called the “Champion Stove”, a natural draft
TLUD that won the Cat Pee Award for clean emissions.  I operated that stove
twice, once with only a  pot-skirt, and once with a single-hole plancha top
plus chimney.  I was learning then, and during the simmer stage I was dropping
in “trickle fuel” and got sub-optimal results on CO and PM in the simmer stage.
 No chance to repeat the tests with better procedures by me.  Delighted to have
won the Cat Pee award with a true TLUD.

In SC 2006, the contest was for forced-air stoves.  I believe I had involvement
with four test runs.  The runs were reduced to 2.5 liters of water and only 30
minutes of simmer, so there were no direct comparisons with results from SC
2005 or other tested stoves.  One test run was with Tom Reed’s Campstove (and
feeding it with trickle-fuel after the initial TLUD load of fuel ended).  One
was of my Juntos B gasifier (directly derived from Reed’s campstove, but with
changing of the fuel containers to allow appropriate true TLUD usage during the
entire test.  Great results, but not as good as the Philips stove closely
followed by Reed’s Campstove).  Third test was with my assistance of Dale
Andreatta with some TLUD-style configuration that was a learning experience. 
Fourth test was with a TLUD made with Ashley Airone.  We pre-tested it with
wood chips that I received from a landscape-supply company in Oregon.  It
worked well.  But during  the test under the hood using the dry official wood,
the fire was a “run-away” and was aborted early.  That year I arrived a few
days early, and stayed a few day after the Stove Camp.  Those extra days did
not result in any additional time for testing of my stoves, although I had
several with me, including a Chip Energy Biomass Grill.  The reason for so few
tests related to the need that particular year for Aprovecho to conduct some
benchmark testing on a new stove model designed of usage in India.  I accepted
that.  I was a guest.  Apro had commitments.  I want to stay friendly with
everyone.   But, Dean, you do favor the Rocket stoves.  You must favor them.  I
have accepted that.  And Apro needs to recognize that.

In SC 2007, I had 3 test runs and one “peek”.  The peek was when the Cambodian
TLUD with rice husks was under the hood while Nordica was explaining the
testing and showing the graphs on the computer screen.  That was enough to
convince me that rice husks and a TLUD (credit to Alexis Belonio) are a
powerful combination for LOW emissions.  Wonderful to see the graph lines so
very low on the screen.  But there was no chance to repeat that with a full
test.   Another test was of the Chip Energy Biomass Grill that was shown at
ETHOS 2007 and acquired by Aprovecho.  First time tested under the hood and we
learned much, especially about spikes in PM whenever additional fuel was added
(and disturbing the fuel bed).  My second emissions test was of the
Cambodian-made Juntos B+ TLUD with woodchips.  I did not use the official fuel,
and therefore the results (very favorable) were not directly comparable with
other stove results. My third complete test was of my Lily alcohol stove (about
which I have already reported the very favorable results).

Four times to Stove Camp (SC).  Each trip costs me about US$800, not counting
any value of my time.  I am glad I have attended.  But in terms of number of
times using the emissions equipment there, that is probably $200 to $300 per
test run for my expenses, but no charges for use of the equipment nor for
Nordica’s excellent help.  Dean has offered me testing time separate from SC,
but I have not yet worked out when to go or how to fund my travel.

Several writers have commented on the need for additional centers for conducting
emissions research.  Aprovecho has developed the PEMS (Portable Emissions
Measurement System).  Fantastic!!!   But not delivered.  In July at Stove Camp
I was told that it would not be released until some further testing was done. 
It looked might good to me, and was used for many of the tests conducted.  I
think 6 PEMS have been ordered, (so the money is available?), but none
delivered.  So we still have no place else to go for emissions testing, or for
access to make many many many test runs.  We need these capabilities.  What
assistance is needed for releasing the PEMS?

One more important comment:  Have someone else operate your stove.  Good idea,
if the person really has taken the time to learn it.  I have been fortunate
that Dale Andreatta has given that time during 2006.  I took TLUD parts to his
home in Ohio, and helped him devise an experimental unit based on the natural
draft Champion stove.  He did great efforts and experiments at his home, and
just before ETHOS 2007, Dale took his experimental TLUD to Aprovecho and put it
under the emissions hood.  He reported his  results at ETHOS 2007.  His stove
had EXCEPTIONALLY LOW EMISSIONS, even several times lower than the Champion
Stove obtained to win the Cat Pee award.  These results should attract
attention and maybe even lead to some funding, but not a glimmer or inquiry or
anything.  Maybe someday.  Meanwhile, I am thankful to Dale and to Aprovecho
for providing data to keep me highly motivated about TLUD gasifier stoves.

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:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson





----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.