Nathaniel Mulcahy, January 2010

Attached are the photos of Mr. Ronald Watts' version of our EverythingNice Stove. A version of which we are now rushing for the Haitian relief efforts to provide clean water. More later

yours, Nat

--
Dear Nathaniel

Here a a few photos from the successful construction and operation of the stove. Because I had no suitable vessels, I built them from sheet steel. It operates quite well, and is a good prototype for a larger model

Many thanks
Ronald Watts

This is a three-part brief description of the World Stove Everything Nice stove made by Al Hislop and Patty Roberts, with Ron Larson participating in the first tests, January, 2010.

World Everything Nice Stove
Plans Available at: http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/EverythingNice_Stove_Instructions.pdf

Part A. Narrative (by Patty)

Biochar Experiment 1 1/9/10

Al made an Everything Nice pyrolyzer from the design on the World Stove website. We used a large coffee can and then a canister for the two cans so it was rather large. We first tried pine cones but they just smoked so we put in pellets instead. This gave a good clean burn and we put a tripod over the stove and boiled water, heated soup, cooked pasta and cooked pasta sauce with fresh meat and fresh vegetables. When the flame extinguished, there was still some smoke coming from the stove so it was covered on the top to remove oxygen and set in a shallow basin of water on the bottom. This extinguished the smoke but moistened the bottom of the char slightly. When we emptied the stove, we saw that some of the pellets had not pyrolyzed. We believe this was because of the fairly large diameter of the can. To dry the char and pyrolyze the remaining pellets, we put the mass into a canister and put it into our hot wood stove. This allowed complete pyrolysis of the remaining pellets and provided complete drying of the fuel. It’s possible that this changed the pH of the char from its original pH because of a different pyrolysis temperature.

Ignition: torch (for several minutes)

Pre-burn Fuel Weight: 58.5 oz wood pellets from 100% pine, less than 1% ash

Post-burn Fuel Weight (Char): 16.5 oz (28.2% of starting weight)

Post-burn Fuel Volume: Slightly greater than half of pre-burn volume

Time: 2 hours and 20 minutes of a very good, clean, strong burn.

Calculated output to pot: 560 watts

Exp1: (Saturday)
_*Lighting:*_ See text. Hope others can tell us of their successful
ways to light this same stove. We have not yet tried to solve this
problem using prepared starter materials. Maybe easier with the
"restriction-lid" removed? The two sheet metal wind-breaks and the ice
show this was not the best day for testing. Note the small amount of
discoloration (burned paint on the lid) - from an earlier test with
too-loose material (that was easier to light), which only gets a little
larger in later photos.. Discoloration off-centered because of windy
conditions and means of lighting. When we got it started with this
torch, there was never any massive smoking.

Experiment 1, Good Flame

*_Good flame_*. A typical flame without a cook-pot. We saw essentially
the same flame for a total of more than 4 hours over two experiments.
The gap-reducing bricks not in place in this early photo. The
discoloration of the lid never got much more pronounced than here -
showing that a relatively cool gas is coming up in the outer narrow
"chimney". You can't see it here - but there are hot gases going down
through the central can fuel supply - doing the pyrolysis without
oxygen. We are unsure whether any pyrolysis gas is coming upwards
(we don't understand the pressure profiles yet), but certainly a good bit
is going downward. This is the best view of the outer set of large
holes. Could they be done with a punch? Maybe. Could they be
placed on the bottom of the outer can? Maybe - with a spacer
between the bottom surfaces of the two “cans” (as is done in the
mainWorld Stove models). There are several ways
possible to control this air supply - which should NOT be called the
primary air, as would be appropriate if this were a TLUD. Although
there is some pre-mixing of the combustion gases, this still is showing
signs of being a ("wispy") diffusion flame - not at all like the tighter
much bluer flame seen in Nathaniel's numerous YouTube videos and
mentioned in the instructions.

Experiment 1, Cooking
*_Cooking_*: Typical flame with a typical pot (and larger ones used for
some of the cooking). The tripod was in no way optimized (we raised
the stove about three inches with standard available mini-bricks; four
inches might have given higher efficiency - but more soot). It was
certainly easy to have too much heat for cooking pasta (boil-over once
when we weren't paying attention). At no time during the two hours of
operation did we (or could we) adjust anything. We are working on a
possible fix for that, when on a later weekend, we will try a means of
controlling the air flow. You should also next see a "convection skirt"
of the type being sold by Aprovecho.

Biochar Experiment 2 1/10/10

Using the same stove as yesterday, but this time with a cone in the center to displace the area that didn’t pyrolyze yesterday, we filled the stove with pellets again. This time however the stove had 15% less fuel because of the cone. We spent about a half hour trying to light the stove with twigs, vasoline, pine needles, paper, some other fluffy combustibles and fondue fuel. None of these things got the stove going. We ended up using the torch again. The torch lit the pellets in a minute or so and then it took about 15 minutes before we saw the good, steady, smokeless cooking flame. Once we got that good flame, we measured 2 hours 23 minutes of pyrolysis. The stove burned for the about the same amount of time as yesterday, but this time all the pellets were pyrolyzed. The outer can seemed to have the same temperature pattern today as yesterday.

Ignition: torch (shorter time than yesterday)
Pre-burn Fuel Weight: 49.5 oz wood pellets (same kind as yesterday)

Post-burn Fuel Weight (Char): 14 oz (28.2 % of starting weight, same as yesterday)

Post-burn volume: a little less than half

Calculated output to pot: 287 watts (This number is much lower than yesterday’s. We don’t like our thermometer for this application, so both days’ numbers are suspect.)

Time: 2 hours 23 (more carefully measured than yesterday)

Those temperatures were pretty consistent until the pyrolysis ended and we put a cap on the top. Unlike yesterday, we didn’t put the bottom in water. Smoke began to come out of the holes at the bottom and the temperature at the bottom began to rise. We suspected that some combustion was starting to take place. We poured the pellets into a tray but they seemed to be getting hotter rather than cooler so we scooped them into another canister and put on a tight lid so no more oxygen would be available.

Experiment 2, Cone

_*Cone*_ - Showing the cone and the interior (the latter after almost
five hours of operation). No signs of any excess heat anywhere on the
outside can. Little on the inner can, but considerable tarring on the
inside and the top portion of the cone. Probably a lot of interesting
pyrolysis science in understanding why the cone looks like it does after
2+ hours of operation one time. Note the many interior small holes.
Note the single screw holding the two cans together (not shown in Nathaniel's drawings [at http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/EverythingNice_Stove_In...
] but mentioned at the bottom of p 3. We found all the instructions
complete, but guess we have to test a lot more fuel combinations before
we get the tight blue flame mentioned in the instructions.

Experiment 2, After Pyrolysis
Exp 2 (Sunday)
*_After Pyrolisis_* A view into the unit perhaps ten-fifteen minutes after the
unit stopped operating - and began smoking (pretty profusely, so you
want to react quickly). We placed a second lid to cover the opening -
but nothing else.(no covering of the lower holes - which we would likely
try to do next time). Note good uniformity of the char except right in
the middle where you can see the tip of the added cone. This is the first
time you can see that there are two cans - with the spacing of about a
centimeter (exact spacing dictated by can availability; this outer can is available at
about $.50-$1.00; no cost for the inner can). At the lower left is the
(pre-trimmed) pine cone which charred perfectly after being placed into
the unit.. No lighting up, no combustion, perfect retention of tiny
features - proving the lack of oxygen just below the flames seen in
other pictures. The unit was initially filled up to within 3/4 inch of
the top of the inner can, per Nathaniel's instructions, so you can see
there was perhaps 35-40% shrinkage.

Experiment 2, Char
_*Exp 2 Char:*_ This to show the good uniformity of the resulting
char. Just a few that looked torrified (deep brown color - but we
can't even see them in this photo), not charred. In Experiment #1,
with no interior cone, perhaps 15% uncharred, roughly in the volume
taken up by the cone.

New plans and new ideas: We want a sliding band around the bottom of the can which can be used to regulate airflow through the holes and maybe the pyrolysis rate. When the band slides down, it will partially close the holes. When pyrolisis has finished, the band can be pushed all the way down to cover the holes entirely and keep oxygen out.

Part B. Technical Description

(by Al)

The inner tin was a Yuban Coffee can, with diameter 6.05 inches (excluding the roll bead where the bottom is attached. The original height of the can was 7.5 inches, and the height was trimmed down to 6.7 inches above the inside of the bottom surface. 74 holes .0.159 inch diameter were drilled on a line 0.75 inches from the bottom.

The outer tin was a decorative cookie tin with a fitted lid. The diameter of the can (excluding the rolled bead that attached the bottom) was 6.4 inches. A 3 inch diameter hole was cut in the center of the lid. The lid was 7.1 inches above the inside of the bottom of the can. 33 holes of 0.5 inch diameter were drilled as close as possible to the bottom of the outer can.

The inner can was filled to about ¾ inch of its top with pine pellets intended for use with pellet stoves. The weight of the fuel was 58.5 oz (1.66 kg). These pellets were ignited using a propane torch over the entire top surface for about 1 minute.

The stove operated with what appeared to be constant output for 140 minutes. A water heating test was performed with a pot set about 3 inches above the stove opening. Two liters of water was placed in a covered pot of diameter 8.5 inches and height (without lid) of 3 inches. Water temperature was measured using a “point-and-shoot” infrared thermometer. (I suspect that at higher temperatures this thermometer reads low, as it most likely senses the temperature of the steam above the water in the pot, and not the water itself.) Water start temperature was 12.5C, and finish temperature was 81.1C, at which time boiling bubbles were coming off the bottom of the pot, and much energy was being lost to steam. Elapsed time was 17 minutes.

When the flame extinguished, much smoke came from the stove, so a lid without a hole was placed on top of the stove. Smoke continued to pour from the holes at the bottom of the stove, so it was placed in a pan of water to cover the holes. This resulted in wetting of the contents of the stove. After cooling, the stove was opened and the contents examined. The fuel was found to have been converted to char, except for a portion of pellets about 1.5 inches high and 3 inches in diameter at the bottom of the stove.

Since the fuel was wet, it was not weighed. Instead, the wet fuel including the unconverted pellets was placed in a container and heated to complete pyrolization. The weight of the remaining char was 16.5 oz (28.2% original weight).

A hollow metal cone of height 4.5 inches and diameter 4.5 inches was made, and placed in the bottom of the inner can before adding fuel pellets for a second run. This time the weight of the fuel was 49.5 oz, the burn time was again 140 minutes, and the weight of the remaining char was 14 oz (28.3% original weight). This time all but 1 or 2 pellets appeared to have been converted to char.

Michael N Trevor
Marshall Islands

Marshall Islands TLUD

I finally got to lite it up. Again as some of you know my interests are
varied and doubled up. I want to burn what people may be throwing away or
burning to add to green house gases and global warming. I am also interested
in Char and Terra Preta as well as atoll soils are regarded a notoriously
weak. For those not in the tropics my fuel here are chopped up pieces of
the mid ribs from coconut palms. These do take some time to gather dry and
chop but some place these are nearly ubiquitous as rice hulls or sugar cane
scraps and their price may be right for many $0.00.

Fuel

Loading Fuel
and Again

Trying to Lite Off
now its going

Over all the stove owes serious thanks to Paul Anderson, who kept after me
to make it, and Paal Wendelbo and Sai Bhasker. They all contributed ideas
for me to digest. To some I have joked this hydrid should be called the
Champion Pekope Smokeburner. I like the simplicity of Paals and Pauls
secondary air gap. I like Sai's idea of fins to promote swirling and
mixing. I worry a little about Pauls protruding handles so I changed that a
little. Paul uses a riser to promote draft so I kept that and put Sai's
twister fins inside it. .

Lighting it off was not so easy and took three attempts, and much more smoke
that I would have liked. The stem pieces were not catching fire well. I
finally got it going with some copra chips and small pieces of frond riblets
as well, with a dash of WD 40. Once it finally caught in about the 6th photo
the flames do appear to be curling around in the riser can, and in the 7th
the standing flame has a nice twisty shape. The burn was not as long as I
had hoped for as by say 35 minutes it was definitely dying down. The fuel
was quite chunky and not very tightly packed, probalby why. There also was
char material left in the bottom but I should have pulled the burner can a
few minutes earlier.

The reuseable mesh disk in the bottom of the burner, a tin can, and the
simple handles needing 4 small nuts bolts and washers is not very
technically advanced, meaning making multiple standby drop in burners is
"from the dump" cheap. The way I have suspended the burner by its handles in
notches in the outer cylinder is a step towards further simplicity and means
changing in and out additional fuel canisters is very simple. (Please though
not one make jokes about the sloppy mis-sized handles) A craftsman would
have each canister identical. The principle should be clear to all though.
Paal was much the source for the straight simple outer cylinder but the
hanging basket burner means no spacers or legs and only simple holes for air
entrance. I do see some areas for further testing here...the gap between the
inner and outer housing and the number and size of air holes allong the
bottom of the outer cylinder. I have never seen Rajan's stoves but a SS
outer cylinder for appearance, a cooler shell and longevity with a drop in
sacrificial burner might be worth considering.

Since Paul brought up longivity in TLUDS this morning, I do hope that my
aluminum outer cylinder will not get hot enough to have a problem. The
tincan liner simply means drink some more milk and make another one, not big
deal at all. It may not be a Stradavarus, really more of a washtub bass,
but now I can play with the tuning it and my fuels. The main thing is it did
work sort of and I believe a couple of my ideas have merit. Anyone out
there in the larger world who sees a use for any of this please help
yourselves. Also please pass along any suggestions. It is interesting the
the Legislature and hearing got in to fuels, solar and sustainable issues
today.

If Tom does not think this is to simplistic he might want to clean it up and
post it.

From the sand box in the Pacific,

Michael N Trevor..

Marshall Islands TLUD

Project Title: Western Gasifier Stove Project
African Christians Organization Net work, Salim Mayeki Shaban, May 10, 2009

AFCON Workshop

APPLICANT

Name of Organization: African Christians Organization Net work
Mailing Address: P.O.BOX 323, BUNGOMA 50200 Kenya
Physical Address: 1 st fl. KCB Building
Telephone: + 254 727 621841
Email: salimshaban2005 at gmail.com
Principal Officer: Salim Mayeki Shaban
Project Contact Person: Salim Mayeki Shaban Programme Coordinator and Everlyne Otunga Program Manager

PROJECT
Focal Area: Reducing indoor air Pollution and forest Conservation
Activity Category: Learning by Doing Project.

Proposed project Duration: Two Years.

FINANCES
Total Mount grants Request: (KSHS) 4,245,429.20 (USD) 62,241.3
Other Contributions (KSHS) 1,520,000.00
Grand Total (KSHS) 5,765,429.20
Exchange Rate kshs 70.00 = I Us$

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 GOAL OF THE PROJECT
To promote energy conservation and reduce deforestation in the sugar cane growing in Western Kenya.

.1.2.1 Specific Objectives
To Promote TLUD gasifier cookstoves and five biogas planter in Western Kenya
To provide and service 20,000 TLUD gasifier cookstoves and 5,000 fireless stoves..
To train 150 women and youth groups in production, repair and sale of energy saving equipment
To train schools and communities on energy conservation and use of renewable energy technologies.
To develop an energy equipment workshop for production, service and sale of improved cook stoves and energy saving equipment.

1.3 ACTIVITIES
The activities in the project will be
Community mobilization on energy conservation, forest resource management and effect of indoor air
Training in design, manufacturers and sale of renewable energy equipment and technologies i.e. biogas, TLUD gasifier cookstoves.
Networking on renewable energy conservation i.e. knowledge sharing and information dissemination.
Manufacture TLUD gasifier cookstoves, and five Biogas planters

2.0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH PARTNERS
This project will be carried out within the Nile Basin in Western Kenya. The same area is sources of Nile and other small tributaries. The project will promote energy saving culture and lead to sustainable use of forest resources while contributing towards the Kyoto protocol implementation. While noting that firewood is the major source of energy within the Nile basin and Methane, is 20 times more potent CO2 and hence its use in biogas energy is encouraged in managing green house effect.

3.0 PROJECT AREA
Western Kenya has a population of over 5 million people of which 80% depend on agriculture for livelihood and over 70% use firewood as fuel source. A survey has shown that all boarding schools use firewood and charcoal as fuel for cooking hence pressure on forest cover. Sugar cane growing in Mumias, Malava and Bungoma is a heavy user of trees as firewood. This combined has led to heavy exploitation of forests and trees for firewood hence a danger to the water catchments area.

4.0 PROBLEMS/CHALLENGE
Sugar cane cultivation in western Kenya, which started in mid 1970’s, has accelerated the rate of destruction of trees due to high population density has further compounded the problem of destruction of forests and trees hence threatening the very source of water within the Nile Basin. Schools continue to put pressure on forest due to their high demand for firewood to use in cooking with highly inefficient open fire stoves. These project will develop biogas as an alternative source of energy, promote economical use of energy in institutions and homesteads through use of energy saving stoves create employment for people trained in production and service of the same and of the same and efficiently generate and use the highly potent methane from farmlands through biogas plants.

5.0 RATIONALE
This project meets the requirements of MDG's and Partnership for clean indoor air broad objective. The project will support community driven effort and will address environmental threats on local scale within the Nile basin region in the area of development and use of alternative energy and construction materials. In the process of carrying out participatory planning and appraisals for Musamba, Matungu, Kholera and Khalaba, the villagers expressed the desire to get cheap alternative to fuel firewood energy and alternative to open fire 3-stone cooking method. In all this areas, villagers expressed their fears that trees are disappearing and as a result they use farm wastes like maize stalks for firewood. The same should be used to replenish soil fertility after the crop season and should not used in the kitchen as firewood. Others were resorting to cane trash and remnants.

See specific goals and objectives in the attached project document.

AFCON