Re: Practical boiling

["Kevin Chisholm" <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>]

Dear Crispin

Subject: Practical boiling


> Dear Stovers with an interest in Boiling
>
> I have given this some thought and have come up with a practical use for
> rapid boiling.

Your thoughts are indeed practical. However, what you are proposing is a
"Stove Development Program", which could indeed benefit from the advances
and insights that would flow from a "Fast Boiling Contest."

You are proof that the "Fast Boiling Contest" concept is beneficial:

1: You originally thought that 3 minutes was a fast boiling time, but in
less than one week, you got your boiling time down to les than one minute.
2: With what you have learned so far, you have been able to configure a
concept for a new line of products which should be very benifical to
Society.

Once others start playing with simple stoves in the Pot Boiling Contest, I
am sure that they wil get insights, as you did, and come up with other
practical uses for stove system, and with better ways to build stoves for
specific purposes.


...del...>
> The challenge to stovers all over the world is to prepare a technology
> package that will boil small amounts of water in a short time using as
> little fuel as possible.  This means that the combination of
> fuel+stove+water container must function as a package to deliver
> convenience, sterility, affordability and sustainability in terms of
> technology transfer and fuel type.
>
You have one very good package proposal.... new players may be able to come
up with others.

> Our competition should have a practical side so that our actions do not
> begin in words and end in words.  We should demonstrate a method of
> preparing water in sufficient quantity and of high enough purity to allow
a
> person living in a remote locality the ability to bottle-feed an infant
> safely.

That is one benefit that can flow from the Stoves Contest" Many others can
flow also. I think it is a mistake to "channel a R&D project too early.
What you are suggesting is the development of a stove system for a specific
application. This is more along the lines of "focused development", rather
than "fun, research, and exploration."
>
> The water vessel must be 'open season'.  Anything that assists the stove
> developer to achieve the primary purpose is allowed.

Thats OK for a dedicated purpose. However, for simplicity in running a
contest, I feel that a standard container is a big first step toward a
"level playing field."

  The fuel has to be one
> that can be made, collected, manufactured or is otherwise available in
> remote areas.

A stove intended for a remote area should have these fueling capabilities.
Many millions of people who  live in city slums could benefit form such a
stove system; their fuel availabilities are obviously very different for
those living rurally.  You may wish to make a City Boiler" and a "Country
Boiler." Th point being that this is a restrictive condition at the
"impractical" research stage, but it is a very valid concern at the stage
where a stove system is being developed for a specific market.

  The stove should be able to be fired rapidly and boil a
> minimum quantity of water for a certain time period, to be established by
> health workers in the area.

This is only mappropriate if you are building stoves for the "Health"
market. Health workers have no particular input into eventual stoves made
for cooking purposes.

 Three minutes is a likely minimum, but some
> places have parasites that require longer boiling times - up to 20
minutes.
>
Thats indeed a relevant concern for the Health Market.

> Thus flash lighting and flash boiling are recommendable to meet the time
> constraints (adding convenience) but the boil must be maintained for a
> certain period so as to kill the biological contaminants.

You are assuming that the techniques for rapid ignition and boiling are well
known by all. That is not at all the case.  The "boil time requirement" is a
Health Concern, and even the racing stoves can meet this requirement....
just provide adequate fuel and turndown provisions for the required burn
duration.

  The empahsis
> should be on system efficiency - i.e. minimum cost of fuel, or minimum
> quantity of fuel used, or minimum wealth loss in terms of time (given an
> 'opportunity cost' value) and material and minimum time taken.  The
stove's
> depreciation cost might also be factored in.
>
Clearly, system efficiency is important. However, efficiency is not at all
important for Racing Stoves." As mentioned previously, another Contest could
be established to find ways of maximizing efficiency. Much of the knbowledge
gained from the "Fast Boil" contest will be directly aplicable to efficient
stove system design.

> Water purification kits are being distributed from the UK through Rotary
> programs and they cost UKPounds 40 each ($64).  I suggest this is too high
> for a practical stove-pot combination, however it could serve as an
initial
> guide.  Large numbers of the kits are given out each year so it is clearly
> in someone's interest to do so.  They work but they use purification pills
> which must be purchased ad infinitum.
>
> I suggest that we take the figure of US$50 (selling to the public price)
as
> the limit for any recommended technology combination (fuel+stove+pot) and
> that this be pursued by the Stove Group.
>
If my stove costs more than half this I will be surprised! But then,
cost optomisation is not an objective in Racing Contests.

> The things that remain to be defined are the amount of water to be
boiled -
> which I recommend be 3 litres, and the time to be held at the local
boiling
> point - I recommend 3 minutes.
>
This defeats the purpose of the Racing Contest. What you are proposing is a
Stove Development pogram.

> I further recommend that the time taken to bring the water to a boil be
> rated separately from the fuel consumption rating.

That is a relevant approach to a practical stove. However, speed is the
objective in racing. All the Racing Stoves would be in your Red Category,
and at the low end of efficiency.

  This can be done by
> giving a distinct 'dimension' to the former by assigning a colour to
> different classes of speed, in the same way partical physicists do with
> sub-atomic bits and pieces.

Your "Stove Identification System" does have a lot of potential merit.
However, however, the builder of a Contest Stove will not be manufacturing a
product line.
>
...del..>
> This practical application offers many challenges to the stove makers.  It
> rewards rapid heating in the beginning, a high turndown rate, an efficient
> arrangement of fuel for initial combustion and an ability to stretch the
> fuels' heat yield into the final seconds.
>
What you are proposing is a contest to develop a practical water boiling
system for the Health Market. This is very different from a far more general
"Racing Stove Contest.

> There is no real need to minimize the fuel load in the beginning as it is
> the fuel consumed _during_ the test that is important, thus removing the
> pursuit of unreasonable stove layouts specially designed to use tiny fuel
> loads for contest applications only.

Again, that is a future practicality.... the contest stoves are not expected
to be manufactured. Their benefit would be directly to the contest entrants,
who would then go on to bigger, better, and more practical  things, if they
were so inclined.
>
> I believe this challenge is worthy of being met and that the rating method
> is durable and flexible enough to allow for dozens of different designs of
> stove, pot and fuel for many years into the future.
>
OK.... would you agree to head up a Contest to develop the stove system that
is of greatest interest to you?

I personally am going focus initially on preparing a  set of Rules  for a
Racing Stove Contest, and as a follow-up, an Efficient Stove Contest, if
time permits.

Kindest regards, and thanks very much for your practical inputs.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

> Sincerely,
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
>
>
>




-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm