Re: Stoves - Matrix of issues

["Ron Larson" <ronallarson@qwest.net>]

Paul (cc stoves):


    I like your proposal - and thank you for starting this new line of
inquiry.

    I have one suggestion to make - which is that air supply/control is of
very great importance - but is not (I think) specifically noted in your
first outline .  I am pretty sure you want this to be included in your
second item c) combustion chamber.  But as this is not explicitly spelled
out, I ask for your thoughts.  My recommendation is that air control ONLY be
discussed in that c) category (and it not appear as a "structure" or other
topic).

    Let me also suggest that the subject of "uses" is especially important
when discussing charcoal-making stoves - which is about the only place in
our discussion where air control has been mentioned.  My perception is that
the emphasis on clean stoves in the US is now being handled almost entirely
by careful and clever primary and secondary air control (not catalytic
devices).  I am afraid we have just barely begun to understand this topic
for simple cheap rural stoves - as proven by the poorer pollution
performance of some stoves that are ostensibly more efficient.  My
discussions with John Crouch some time ago told me that we are going to have
to be a lot more clever about handling secondary air before we have an
acceptable stove.

    This raises the issue of where we should expect to find data of the type
produced by Drs. Kirk Smith and Tami Bond - grams of various emissions per
unit something (kg fuel, kW, kWh output, hour, etc).  Same for the resulting
health impacts.  I guess these should appear under the topic "combustion"
also?

    As someone interested in charcoal-making - I hope we can agree that your
"C" can be interpreted to mean "conversion" (with two outputs).

    See a few more notes below.


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>
To: Apolinário J Malawene <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; Bob and Karla Weldon
<bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>; Ed Francis <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; Tsamba--Alberto
Julio <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; Lily Coyle <astrozen2000@hotmail.com>;
<stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Stoves - Matrix of issues


> Stovers,
>
> After my highly successful trip to southern Africa in March, I am finally
> getting back to the old groove.   One topic is the identification of the
> key "components" to our "stoves" problem.  We listed in previous months 3
> (three) components:  1) fuel,  2) combustion chamber, and  3) uses (or
what
> I previously called cooking but now feel should be broader to include
> heating and even small scale industrial uses like a bread bakery).
>
> Now I think we should add to that list a fourth component:   4) "physical
> structure" of the stove.  Structure is NOT the combustion chamber, but all
> the rest such as the side walls, the height issues, the materials of
> construction, the safety of the structure, and more.
>
    (RWL):  Kirk has done a good job of balancing the various ways that
carbon can be converted and where the energy goes.  I guess that all of the
carbon computations should be under "C", but that the energy flows should be
mostly split between "C" and "S".  OK?

> Therefore, I consider that the 4 components could form a matrix in which
we
> can identify BOTH the specifics of each component and ALSO the
interactions
> BETWEEN the components.   I will make the matrix very small so it should
> come through okay via e-mail.  You can imagine (or draw in) the vertical
lines
> F = Fuel(s)      C = Combustion chamber(s)
> S = Structure     U = Uses, as in domestic processes (cooking, heating,
> etc) or even small industrial uses.

    (RWL):   I agree that it is important to limit the matrix to four items.
A fifth element (such as for "air") will  introduce more complexity than we
need.  I am tempted to suggest "uses" is of a different character than the
others - but let's see what happens.  I think that we will find a lot of
differences in the type of cooking (baking vs broiling vs boiling, etc).
>
>
>               F          C          S          U
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> F          FX
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> C                      CX
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> S                                 SX
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> U                                                UX
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   1.  The diagonal line of FX down to DX are the cell for simple
description
> of the F, C, S, and D.   For example, how many fuels can you name?  And
> then, of that great number of fuels, which ones are found in your
> geographic area of work, and which ones will actually be the foci of your
> efforts.
>
> 2.  Above the diagonal there are 6 cells, and below the diagonal are
> another 6 cells.  Those cells can be called   F-C   and F-S and F-U and
> C-F,,,,,,,, etc.   And in those cells are where we focus attention of the
> interaction between the 2 named components.   For example, the fuel and
> combustion chamber relationship is acknowledged as being very important,
> but there are variations or combinations that work better than
> others.  Here we have much work to do, OR we need to clearly state how our
> already completed work fits into a particular cell of the matrix.
>
(RWL):  It will be interesting to see how the upper and lower off-diagonal
elements get treated - and whether we need 12 such cells or can get by with
only 6.    As an example of the F-U and U-F cells, and my desire to say I
could not find a way to convert dung to charcoal in a charcoal-making
stove - is that the fuel dictating a use (F-U?) - or is this a U-F where the
use is eliminating a fuel?  Or does it matter?  I think it the last - and
that 6 might generally be the case (and if we had 12 boxes to fill, I might
say the same thing twice - which we surely don't want).


> 3.  Additional factors that have impact are the challenges of cost (value
> for the investment by whom), the social challenges (cultural acceptance of
> burning dung, etc) or physical science issues (moisture content of fuels,
> control of secondary air, etc) or environmental challenges (stop severe
> ecosystem damage, etc).

    (RWL):  I am now a bit confused.  Are you suggesting more elements - or
that we need to allocate these into the 10 (or 16) boxes?  We could have a
separate matrix for each topic - or list them in order of importance - or
list them always in the same place (physical parameter first, then costs,
then social challenges, then ..., then ....??   As an example, we "know"
that charcoal-making stoves work less well as "moisture content of fuels"
increases.  Where do we discuss this relationship (F-U?).  Do we expect
there is always something interesting to say in every category?

    Concerning other items in your list:
    a.  I suggest that costs may need to be broken into all four main
categories (F,C,U, S) - but probably not in all six off-diagonal entries,
with separate first cost and continuing elements.
    b.  Social challenges?  -  Good addition - needed to separate into 10
categories?  (Probably so.)
    c.  Physical  (come first?  Maybe call "technical"? (see below))
    d.  Environmental ?   (good addition - need to think more - but probably
like the others

So now we are up to about (4+6)*4=40 different topics.  (trying to keep the
number down)

    As I tried to follow your logic, I remembered a time when I worked for
the US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).  The TA literature
at that time had a seven-letter acronym called EPISTLE (Economic, political,
institutional, social, technological, legal, environmental).  Any of these,
of course,  could kill a technology and I'm sure we could find an example of
each for a real proposed technology being "killed" (and that could possibly
have been predicted in advance).  With your system, I suggest we might
collapse to the four-letter "TEES" where "S" is really "SLIP".

    Just a thought.  Thanks again for starting this new thread.  Have I got
your ideas correct?

Ron

    (Sorry for the long delay from my last attention to "stoves" list
topics - but your interesting proposal came as I just finished a big project
on Sunday - and I should be caught up fairly soon.  I have some thoughts on
your last questions to Tom Reed (I think unanswered) - but will wait a few
days.)



>
> I hope that this helps us focus our discussions and work.
>
> Paul
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200202/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/ (Under construction)
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html (Original)
>
> 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://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
> 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/200202/
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/ (Under construction)
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html (Original)

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://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

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