[Stoves] [Stoves certification of a produced item here versus DYI plans and buyer-driven certification
Richard Stanley
rstanley at legacyfound.org
Tue Feb 26 10:08:13 CST 2008
Tom et al. all other good members:
On our briquette stove idea, in the face of bureaucratic overburden,
we will do the next best thing: make a model, have it tested locally
through friends at the university and as well, seek out the guidance
of whomever is interested, then go directly into the preparation and
publication of a well illustrated manual with all contributers and
testing procedures and results indicated up front and referenced. The
buyer is then advised up front, to consult with their own building /
EPA agency or equivalent, to build the stove under his or her own
set of local regulatory constraints...Its to their own interest to
manage their own product according to their own regulatory environment.
On the agglomeration issue, ever hear of this trailer cement mixer:
They are using it for making something being called "Papercrete" but
it could a well also work for biomass pulping for your fire balls or
otherwise -subsequently densified- biomass. Here's the link to the
technology: http://oikos.com/library/papercrete/fibrous.html
(see page two wherein a one Sean Sands describes his tow-behind
trailer mixer. Its ingenious in that it does not require added power
where one has any sort of access to an ordinary vehicle of any
sort..). Where you did have the stand alone motor of course your
cement mixer looks far more appropriate..
Where you have neither a vehicleor a stand alone power source, we
have developed a hand cranked thresher masher chopper device and have
accordingly, prepared a Construction and Operations manuals which
are now up on our website.
Aluta continua,
Richard Stanley,
Legacy Foundation
www.legacyfound.org
State of Jefferson
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Thomas Reed wrote:
> Dear Richard:
>
> I feel your pain. However, as oil prices escalate the first
> casualties
> will be the US Department of (no) Energy, and the Environmenal (jobs)
> Protection Agency.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> I am putting together a cement mixer to make "fire balls",
> agglomerated
> (not briquetted) charcoal or other particuate matter held together
> by a
> minimal amount of binder (usually starch). I learned of these from
> Jouhn Tatom in GA, 30 years ago and still have a few. They survive
> a 6'
> drop to a hard floor.
>
>
> Charcoal is one of the best fuels, easily made, stored and used,
> but so
> very light. It needs briquetting/agglomeration.
>
> Do you have any experience along this line?
>
> Your pal,
>
> TOM REED BEF/BEC
>
>
>
>
> Richard Stanley wrote:
>> Stovers, esp. those in/familiar with the US part of the Americas and
>> more specifically the Oregon part of all that.
>>
>> We have remained pretty much silent participants as our interest is
>> pretty much focused on just "low tech" biomass briquetting. --until
>> now...
>>
>> Increasingly arising, are requests for the tech and training here in
>> the USA --for application in the USA to the household cooking and
>> heating stove.
>>
>> As cylinders ranging between 8 to 15 cm in diameter by X 7 to 10 cm
>> height, the briquettes we promote are mot really adaptable to pellet
>> stoves. Although they will do nicely in a open hearth or barbecue, we
>> are at a bit of a loss to find a really modern affordable wood stove
>> that would fit the bill.
>> We have been fortunate to have worked with Jon Davies, Kobus Venter,
>> Paul Anderson, Sanu Kaji, Lanny Hansen and others on this list on
>> briquette use in stoves, designed for the third world (or the third
>> world parts of the first world) but not on a functional and
>> affordable stove for our own nation.
>>
>> HAving heated our house and cooked largely off a small wood stove
>> this past 4 months ( we're doing a near total --far more than
>> anticipated at least-- house remodel) I can tell you that finding a
>> good looking stove oven burner wood and kindling storage which looks
>> like something halfway modern, is functional and affordable --- for
>> use with biomass briquettes of the above sizes, is almost non
>> existent.
>>
>> For the functional oven cooker heater stove, I see lots of 20's retro
>> and lots of scandanavian designs for 8+ grand USD, but nothing
>> simple, well design and practical for wood or biomass.
>> Heating stoves yes: Stoves which heat and incorporate an oven and
>> stovetop cooking and wood kindling and wood or briquette fuel
>> storage, no...
>>
>> So we designed one... Its really not rocket science (no pun
>> intended, Approvecho). Doors open out like and oven door, for ---the
>> oven---, and also for the combustion chamber to keep ashes headed
>> inward, (a side tray handles the ashes away from the food and oven),
>> and flat top for cooking / grilling surfaces. Add on a CO meter/
>> alarm, a timer, and temperature gages for the combustion chamber, the
>> oven and the cooktop mounted well above and behind the cooking
>> surface, add glass doors for oven and combustion chamber and a
>> perforated 12 ga steel door for the kindling fuel supply at the base
>> ---with primary and secondary feed and appropriate insulation at
>> optimal locations.
>>
>> Aside from the glass, the instrumentation, this, thus far is all
>> within the realm of a local blacksmith shop, frankly.
>>
>> But then the bureaucracy of well intended regulation hit us in the
>> face: The figure I have is 84,000 USD for the magic certification by
>> the EPA.
>>
>> Yikes: Why and how could simple testing procedure for safety,
>> efficiency , CO /CO2 and particulates emissions cost so much?
>>
>> As with our long standing mechanisee press development, I am
>> perfectly happy to share the design with anyone who wants to develop
>> it and share the returns after costs are all in... but first what am
>> I missing on this immense stumblng block of EPA testing..?
>>
>> Surely for example, the energy and accredited knowledge base
>> accumilated here can provide or at the minimum recomend such a
>> testing process/ resource which would satisfy the good EPA at a
>> reasonable price and time frame...?
>>
>> thoughts / advise ?
>>
>> Richard Stanley,
>> Legacy Foundation
>> www.legacyfound.org
>> State of Jefferson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear Stovers,
>>>
>>> Some very illuminating comments have been made.
>>>
>>> Dean wrote: (much snipped)
>>>
>>>> The pot lid helps very, very much when simmering especially if the
>>>> cook does
>>>> reduce power to keep the water just below rapid boiling which
>>>> cooks food as
>>>> quickly (96C-93C).
>>>>
>>> Yes, and we should be advocating this whenever possible. And that
>>> means using
>>> lids in the test measurements that are being consulted to judge
>>> which stoves
>>> are best and get the funding.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, in the Water Boiling Test we need to use a pot that is as
>>>> representative
>>>> as possible of pots used in the world.
>>>>
>>> That is good for being able to compare the lab tests, but quite bad
>>> considering
>>> that the test results are used to help make decisions as if all the
>>> target
>>> populations use the same size pots.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rob Bailis and Aprovecho did a
>>>> survey, asking NGOs what they recommended. The range is enormous.
>>>> In Central
>>>> America folks use huge pots. In India folks use tiny pots. Etc.
>>>>
>>>> A 7 liter straight sided pot holding 5 liters of water was thought
>>>> to be a
>>>> middle ground.
>>>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>
>>>> Now, the Water Boiling Test also used a standard pot holding 2.5
>>>> liters of
>>>> water which is used in the stove cannot bring to boil the larger
>>>> amount of
>>>> water.
>>>>
>>> But the quantitative test results from 2.5 liter and 5.0 liter
>>> tests are not
>>> comparible, and very limited data or test runs are available for
>>> either size.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The big problem with using a lid on the 7 liter straight sided pot
>>>> is that
>>>> it affects the turn down ratio.
>>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> If a lid is used to simmer at just below the rolling boil state
>>>> (between
>>>> 96C-93C) it is probably not possible to keep the fire lit using
>>>> normal sized
>>>> wood.
>>>>
>>> THAT statement should say something about the stove in use.
>>> Instead, the
>>> ability to keep the fire going has been turned into an issue of
>>> fuel size and
>>> having a lid on the pot.
>>>
>>> From what I have seen in many countries, there is no "normal sized
>>> wood" until
>>> the actual cookstove is also specified. Lots of twig-sized wood is
>>> used in
>>> many areas of India.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If I remember correctly, less than 1/6th the energy of high
>>>> power is
>>>> required for simmering with a lid even on a 7 liter pot. So for me
>>>> to do a
>>>> Water Boiling Test with a lid, I normally need to split up the
>>>> wood into
>>>> smaller diameters.
>>>>
>>> That all depends on what size fuel you start with and the
>>> characteristics of the
>>> stove.
>>>
>>>> When a lid is not used, then the Turn Down ratio is around 3-4 and
>>>> the
>>>> larger fire used can be kept going without splitting wood.
>>>>
>>> In my nearly seven years of serious stove work, I had never heard
>>> that
>>> justification before. Essentially: The official water boiling test
>>> has no lid
>>> on the pot so that the stove in use (Rocket stove) could keep the
>>> simmer going
>>> but not overly boiling too vigorously while maintaining a preferred
>>> size of
>>> stick wood as fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, it is
>>>> possible to conduct a Water boiling Test either way. The question
>>>> was: which
>>>> is more indicative of normal use? Thinking that people would not
>>>> split wood
>>>> up very fine and faced with a lot of experimenters being bemused
>>>> that their
>>>> simmering fires went out, we went with an uncovered pot for
>>>> simmering. It is
>>>> another judgment call...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And I think that it was not the correct judgment call. It was
>>> correct
>>> for users
>>> of Rocket stoves, and has reinforced their beliefs in the
>>> superiority of the
>>> Rocket stoves. But in my opinion it was not correct considering
>>> the vast
>>> variety of other stoves then and now available.
>>>
>>> Is it realistic to say that in the standard WBT with a lid on the
>>> pot, the
>>> Rocket stoves would have heavy boiling during the 45 minutes of
>>> simmering, and
>>> therefore yielding significantly different results? Of course the
>>> users could
>>> opt to use smaller diameter stick-wood fuel which may __or may
>>> not___ allow
>>> that stove to still produce the published results on quantity of
>>> fuel used and
>>> the emissions during the simmer stage. (data related to the bring-
>>> to-boil
>>> stage does not change unless the physical stove is altered to
>>> accomodate the
>>> simmer stage.)
>>>
>>> In another recent message, Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, a stove that is fast to boil was the number one concern of
>>>> cooks in an extensive survey of Indian cooks.
>>>>
>>> I agree with that statement. But for the most part, Indians cook in
>>> small pots
>>> without much excess water. In the Hyderabad area where I have
>>> worked
>>> recently,
>>> a family of 3 or 4 would make rice, dal (lentals) and chapati
>>> (tortilla-like)
>>> for one main meal. One burner was generally sufficient to use in a
>>> succession
>>> of pots. 2 cups of water with one cup of rice (or 3 cups with 1.5
>>> cups of
>>> rice) was brought to a boil quickly. How long does it take to
>>> boil 2
>>> or 3 CUPS
>>> of water with rice in it? 6 to 9 minutes or average of 7 or 8
>>> minutes,
>>> and let
>>> it boil for another 4 or 5 minutes. Then the rice (always with the
>>> lid
>>> on) was
>>> placed to the side to finish cooking with the heat within the small
>>> pot (and
>>> often without even a cloth cover for retained heat cooking). That
>>> is a bit
>>> different from the WBT with 5 liters.
>>>
>>> Then the same high fire is used to boil the pre-soaked lentales,
>>> which
>>> also was
>>> with only 2 or 3 cups of water. Disregarding that many families
>>> have pressure
>>> cookers, allow another 10 to 15 minutes with high fire.
>>>
>>> Total time so far is 20 to 30 minutes. But if the cook fires up two
>>> burners (as
>>> in LPG or a TLUD gasifier or a two-hole stick-wood stove), the clock
>>> time is cut
>>> in half.
>>>
>>> The chapatis are cooked one at a time on a tawa', essentially a
>>> slighly
>>> concave
>>> circular griddle or mini-"plancha". Mostly at high fire. Less
>>> than a minute
>>> each, all are finished in another 10 to 15 minutes.
>>>
>>> No meaningful simmer where I was working in India. And no cooking
>>> without lids
>>> except to stir in spices and then replace the lid.
>>>
>>> So, I am increasingly LESS impressed by the results of the WBT. It
>>> is nice to
>>> know that the TLUD emmissions are so low.
>>> (Thank you Dale Andreatta for the one set of data from under the
>>> emissions hood
>>> using the TLUD as it should be used. --- Yes, much better than my
>>> own two test
>>> runs in 2005 when I was still learning how to use the TLUDs, and
>>> still
>>> won by a
>>> significant margin the Cat Pee Award for cleanest combustion.)
>>>
>>> Finally, Martin Boll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just want to draw your attention to the well known fact, that
>>>> small fires (I think [of them] as well turned-down-fires) need
>>>> small-calibrated fuel/wood, to be managed well.
>>>>
>>> Hail to small wood!!!! Hail to small fuel!!!!! And that
>>> includes
>>> the wood
>>> chips and hammermill wood and broken twigs, etc. that are so good in
>>> the TLUDs.
>>> Although the low fire was not used much where I was working in
>>> India,
>>> the TLUDs
>>> have a very good turn down ratio.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
More information about the Stoves
mailing list