Poor man's poll - alternate name for RMH

People can understand that a Russian Mass Heater (or whatever it's called) isn't just for use in Russia.  I like the Montana Mass Heater cuz it seems like Montana might be cold and if it works there, it'll work in my area.  And it must be rugged and handsome.

Mike Haasl wrote:People can understand that a Russian Mass Heater (or whatever it's called) isn't just for use in Russia.  I like the Montana Mass Heater cuz it seems like Montana might be cold and if it works there, it'll work in my area.  And it must be rugged and handsome.

😂😍🫶 ahahaha.  this distracted my from my absurdly long thoughts; thank you.  And now I'm thinking it should simply be called a Rugged Handsome Body Heater.  Sex sells, dangit.

I shall never again settle for some non-rugged rocket again.

Matt McSpadden wrote:I'm not crazy about any of those options. Some don't roll off the tongue and some do not explain what it is.
It really is a thermal battery system... could you use heat battery or thermal battery as part of it?
Wood fired thermal battery?
Rocket Heat Battery?

I was musing along the same lines of Matt, though I prefer his 'thermal' and 'battery' to my own brainsputter below.  Why not 'Radiant Thermal Home Battery'.  It's gentle, palatable, and invites conversation.  At any rate, they are good descriptors for when discussion erupts with noninitiates.

Personally I agree with those suggesting steer clear of Montana.  We don't want to appeal to only Montanians and Montana-likers (incudes me, everyone who's seen H4 Red October, and everyone who owns an RV LLC) and, no offence, Montana didn't invent it so that feels a bit cheeky.  Unless it's a brand name in which case full steam and may I have a brochure with current sales.  Also not feeling masonry as opposed to mass because it's limiting.  I mean, if I were both sci-fi and daft enough to use water as the holding material that would still qualify, no?

J. Syme wrote:ran thru words describing: environment impact, what it is, what it does. then tried to rhyme (maybe a bit too corny but :  Healthy Hearth Heater??

Mr/ Miss J, I don't think that's corny at all.  Alliteration totally sells.  And then we could say cornier things like it's the 3H for 4Hers.  Seriously though, I agree with you that ideas can be appealingly 'packaged' for the masses.  Most especially novel avant-garde things like what did cavemen do?  That is before xylophane-wrapped handwormers for foozball games came on the scene (speaking of, can't someone make a washable silicone wrapper for embers already).  These days the populace is squeamish if it's not ultra one-use and non-biodegradable.  Cute pandas abound on my fb feed, not photos of cute scientists.  Well, there's Uncle Al (Einstein) but let's face it he looks like both.  I think the Healthy Hearth Heater is both pretty darn cute and presents the concept in a nice normalising nonthreatening way, actually.  Now who's using devices...

paul wheaton wrote:
George Carlin once said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

I can't stomach Shark Tank however as both Paul and George (sad Ringo right now) say: 1 divided by 1/2 is the only way to reach 2x the amount.   I.e. let's say we take the dimmest person as our LCD and then halve that for expectations to be met to overflow.  That said - a name doesn't have to completely spell the concept out if you can get a few instagram hotshots to alight conver...... yada yada.

Alexandra Malecki wrote:...I wish there was a way to really beautify the design. Aesthetics aren't my forte. A designer in the natural building sphere attended my workshop and said that she would never put it in a living space because the barrel was so abhorrent. However, she was impressed by the performance and I believe it might make it into her future garage/work space.  

Alexandra (with a gorgeous pharaoh name I want instead) I have always felt that way about RMH aesthetics.  Closest I've come to liking it is when it's done true hobbit/ tatooine style but Hollywood stylists won't work for everyone.  They're snobbish and charge too much.

I realise this isolates us from being true permies, but I can't seem to help it.  I want to live in a gorgeous space that's magazine-cover worthy, not one that makes 70's-era hippies comfy.  Besides - who knows if they truly were.  They got to be high.  

Anyway, as ironic as discussing a picture selling a word book sounds - that magazine-cover um... literally um... sells itself.  In fact I feel so strongly that a photo sells a thousand RMHs that I think if we got it on the right magazine cover you could name it something bog-standard.  Rocket Mass Heater, for instance.

Lastly, let's remember not to be sad about selling out to go commercial - once EVERYone and their dogs' three hairdressers are talking about the *insert hip name here*, there will still exist the OG crowd who frequent the RMH club for speakeasy cocktails served in pinecone cups.

signed,
Your Admirer

So what's in a name that by any other should smell as soot-free.  These are ideas I've been musing on since this thread began - for amusement purposes only.

       1. what does it do            +         2. why will it make your life sweeter          =       3. (rocket) mass market victory
(ecologically-friendly heat)            (cheap, easy, did we mention it's hot)                 (yahtzee for everyone sans energy CEOs)

It's-your-Funeral-if-you-don't-use-this-Pyre - nope, too ecologically guilt-ridden  
The Lazy Person's Insulative Heater aka 'Gert's Blanket'  - nope.  Restricts users to Paul's pool and requires FT lifeguard
Caveman Style - theme lyrics set to Gangnam Sty... nevermind.  Dangit.  That won't leave anytime tonight.
Mars Heater - nods to hopeful futuristic colonisation as well as Elton John whilst completely ditching above pious mass lecture about cavemen doing energy management first and better
HFHF (Have Fun, Heat Freely) - nicknamed the Hufflepuff which uses Baby Huffington Posts?  I'm here all night.
The TEH (TwoEH) - Ecological Economic Home Heater
At-home Non-experimental Exponential Benefits of Used Corn Through the Lack of Soot Experience - Lemony Snicket it?  
Firefly - ignore.  This one's personal.  I'll never stop pining for S02 and this topic incited (!) it.  PS. One more flame synonym and I will self-inflagrate.  Immolate?
Tube of Fyre - nah.  Sounds dangerous, at the least thoughts of an upset tummy intervene
Personal Volcanic River - fun!  Where's my canoe
House Lava Tube - bring Hawaii home
Pele's Rocket - prolly not.  Restricts thoughts to footballers, 50th state, and why would she need a house heater anyways - it's Hawaii ffs.  Still fun, though.
Sod-the-Grid Device - nah.  I'm now picturing a grass seeder for being too polite to say screw in a non-tool related way
Rocket Hopper - logo a bouncing rocket? Interest the youngest generation and get on sesame street in one fell swoop.  
Fast Big Thing Warmer - weird. this just sounds so familiar

Fine, I'm no good at this.  What about just a rocket emoji 🚀 like prince did?
R - revolutionise
O - our
C - collective
K - kornkobs
E/I - into
T - thermality (my word.  as though kornkobs isn’t)

paul wheaton wrote:

Biophilic Masonry Heater?

George Carlin once said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

The name "rocket mass heater" should make no difference.  this stuff is epicly good.  But that is the exercise we are attempting right now - what if the name can make all the difference?  Then what name should we pick?

"Butt Warmer" or "Butt Heater" describes one of the functions of an RMH. And it sounds funny, because butts are funny. It makes you ask, "how does it warm butts?"

paul wheaton wrote:triple burn masonry heater

Sounds good, plus has some good nickname shorthand possibilities:

That's a nice 3B you've got there!

My Threebee got me through the winter on just a face cord last year!

Carbon Negative Masonry Heater

Im not sold on any of the names yet, either.  But It feels like this is getting closer to finally coming up with something that will stick.

Here is what ill add to possible names:

- S.T.E.A.M Heater (Sustainable Thermal Energy and Masonry)

- Smart Thermal Energy Accumulation Masonry (S.T.E.A.M.)

- EcoThermal Masonry Heater

- EcoMasonry Heat System

- Masonry Heat Vault

- Masonry Thermal Exchange Unit

- Thermal Masonry Heat System

- Practical Energy Redistribution Masonry (P.E.R.M)

- Performance-Enhanced Radiant Masonry (P.E.R.M.)

- Precision Engineered Radiant Masonry (P.E.R.M)

- Performance/Practical/Precision Radiant Masonry (PRM)

- Green Energy Masonry System (GEMS)

wood efficient space heater

Jerry McIntire wrote:Don't like any of  the alternatives. My suggestion: Rocket Masonry Heater. Still RMH.

If I don't get to suggest, triple burn is the only acceptable one.

I like the idea of keeping 'Rocket' in the name.

For my money, I'd go with High Efficiency Masonry Heater. It takes full advantage of the already accepted term (masonry heater), and clearly denotes itself as an improvement.
No arguments from insurance companies or building codes.
Anyone interested in a Masonry Heater is (more) interested in an H.E. Masonry Heater.

And I don't think you necessarily lose the familiar Rocket Mass Heater name either. It is super common for a thing to have an official name and another name used by people more familiar with it. Salesmen would likely never use RMH, but they would also only talk about H.E. Heaters when selling.

But I am in the camp that thinks it's not just the name holding back large scale adoption. RMH tech needs to be taught to architects, builders, designers, and contractors. Normies don't consider if they could heat their homes using their fireplace. That thing is just a luxury that came with the house. To take over the world, these things need to be built in new construction and/or included in a designers work on a remodel.

I'm getting long winded now, but I also think it'll take some plug and go plans for full builds (not just shippable cores, though include those). And (don't hate me for it) some solid, good looking examples that aren't cob. (Or are covered cob). Using materials and techniques builders are familiar with would go a long way.
It's stupid, sure. But average-dude doesn't care that it costed him $2500 to build what you did for $300, he just wants to source it from Home Depot and go on with his life.

While I sort of like Triple Burn Masonry Heater and gave it a vote, it sounds a bit like a better mousetrap marketing ploy. I like Montana Masonry Heater much more.

I agree with Mike Hassl's assertion that Montana lends a sense of "if it can make it there, it can make it anywhere!". Montana Masonry Heater also sounds like an attribution to a place where the worldwide idea has received some level of distinct refinement. Kudos.

The inclusion of "Masonry Heater" is the critical element, for regulatory adoption/understanding, as well as cultural adoption. We are all quite familiar and comfortable with masonry, we know what it is (most commonly brick or stone) and many have a chimney/fireplace in their home and it seems "normal", rather than some counter-cultural "dirty-hippy-shit". It also seems durable and time-tested, not just some new-fangled idea prone to fail, become obsolete, or fall out of fashion.

Almost as important to rebranding this is the EXCLUSION of "rocket" and "R" or "RMH" with substitutions for the words. A clear, clean break from "RMH", "Rocket", "Rocket Mass Heater" disambiguates internet searches, and future conversations promoting the concept from the "welded-metal camping stoves" and the variety of DIY RMH systems that a dedicated few have built and use.

"Mass" has less of an image problem, so "Montana Masonry Mass Heater" could also be an option, which might be more descriptive, or make "MMMH" the abbreviation (Mmm...Heater, sounds like something enjoyable.)

polly jayne smyth wrote: Also not feeling masonry as opposed to mass because it's limiting.  I mean, if I were both sci-fi and daft enough to use water as the holding material that would still qualify, no?

I think if you were going to use water for the burn tunnel it would require levels of gravity manipulation/tractor beams that would require cold fusion in the first place, so we will probably be beyond the need for these heaters by then.

The central feature of the RMH is complete combustion. The high heat levels generated by this require robust materials for the burn chamber. While fancy and expensive ceramics can be used in spots or even the entire thing, the most durable and affordable designs use firebrick. "Mass" is an important part of the whole system, but "Masonry" is highly relevant to present and historical construction.

As for being limiting... Are people reluctant to give rides to others because they are in an auto(self)mobile? How many people only watch programs without sound turned on because they use a television?

Coydon Wallham wrote:I think if you were going to use water for the burn tunnel it would require levels of gravity manipulation/tractor beams that would require cold fusion in the first place, so we will probably be beyond the need for these heaters by then.

The central feature of the RMH is complete combustion. The high heat levels generated by this require robust materials for the burn chamber. While fancy and expensive ceramics can be used in spots or even the entire thing, the most durable and affordable designs use firebrick. "Mass" is an important part of the whole system, but "Masonry" is highly relevant to present and historical construction.
[/i]?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and definitely I'm always learning and this isn't my forté so may be out in left field.  I meant to use water (or fill in the blank as I'm not a physicist) as the mass which holds/ stores the energy - not the burn tunnel.  Honestly I don't really know what I'm talking about... was imagining that water releases heat from objects 4x faster than air so perhaps that particular mass is sending the concept in the opposite direction as masonry holds it *longer* and I'm unsure about h2o... but I'd think there might be other materials out there I'm not thinking of which function as well or better if designed into the right system... irregardless of cost*?  Oil?  Denser rock (Polly - isn't that 'masonry' - well not if it's crystal)?  Tarmac, lol (I remember Hawaii's temperature reading used to be taken at the airport at the end of the day as it retained the heat better than elsewhere... leading potential tourists on the mainland to shiver with delight and book tickets)?  Or perhaps masonry is the pinnacle - I'm no rocket scientist...  

Apollygies if I convolute but I'm genuinely curious ~ and thank you for your thoughts ~


PS. I agree with Jordon about cost being less limiting once it's a public concept.  The average-dude can more easily finance into a home,  eventually there may be subsidies (note the solar boon), mass-build discounts that might come into play, etc.  For that matter - he also suggested alternatives to cob might be thought of - which was my point.  

Jordan Fl wrote:... average-dude doesn't care that it costed him $2500 to build what you did for $300, he just wants to source it from Home Depot and go on with his life.

I only read thru the first page of comments, and I couldn't "thumbs up" any of the proffered names bc I don't know how (tapping the thumb did not work).

That said, I most prefer Smokeless Masonry Heater, although Paul thinks corporations would sink it.  I don't understand why, but I'm sure he's right.

How can one call the rocket heater with a barrel a masonry heater?  Because down the pipeline it pumps heat into cob which then radiates it?

Someone noted that an aesthetic/interior designer gave a thumbs down to the barrel look.  I have to agree, and my husband said "never in my house!". Whereas a true masonry heater/kachelofen would be attractive and have all the advantages of the RMH.

So, it's very possible that a large part of the lack of interest is not (just) the name, but the ugly-as-sin barrel (sorry! but it's true), and the mental association of a rocket (sounds like a rocket) in one's living space.

For me any of the proposed options are just a big no., I didn't do either thumb up or down. Most of it was already said, adding to it:
- triple burn M.H. - this sounds like a bad comercial, like someone is selling a mediocre product and slapping all the superlatives on it in promotion and marketing. Just no...
- Montana M.H. - if your intended audience is just based in USA (or Canada, it's geographically close enough ;-) ) I would say go for it. But from a non USA, non North American perspective - a lot of people don't have any idea where or what Montana is. It's not compareable to calling something "Russian xyz heater...". Everyone know where Russia is and about coldness of Sibir. Montana not so much. Please don't fall into the trap that the whole world knows all abut US states.

As for a good name, of all mentioned in other comments, "Rocket Masonry Heater" or "Smokeless Masonry Heater" sound the best from my perspective.

Most important - I completely agree with an earlier post that name isn't what's prohibiting people to install RMH. Personally I would say that no. 1 is that you have to DIY or know someone who can DIY. The percentage of people willing and/or able to built it is simply to low. Yes, there are some options, but that's not enough for "taking over the world" with RMHs. The fact is that majority of people, even permie people, would like to have already built options available. It could be parts, or the whole thing. Anyway, that's my take on it.

I'm leaving you all to decide what to do and go sit by my lovely old style masonry heater - she's heating us for the last 45 years and we gave her a second life, I'm guessing she had some 50 years of life before us....

ALEXANDRA MALEKI QUOTE  "The majority of people who know what a rocket mass is, want one, but they are unlikely to DIY one and haven’t heard enough compelling information about the limited COTS products available to switch".

I tend to agree w/ the folks who feel a name change won't change much.  RMH is already an icon word that has been out there for years.  Maybe we should stick with RMH for now, but use a hyphen to create categories for all the ingenious ways people build these things.  This gives perspective, all in one place, like a Feature Article that stays on top of all things RMH and updates as needed.

RMH-Basic-Experimental (firebrick, barrel, manifold, cobb)
RMH-Basic-Full Plans (firebrick, cobb, barrel) plans could include Building Code accepted)
RMH-Portable-Medium Efficiency (Ceramic Fiber, Pebble "Style)
RMH-Stratification Style (Dragon, Matt Walker, etc.)  I've got one in my head that's more like a ceramic KashelOfen
RMH-High Efficiency (latest in double/triple burn, air venting, cold air tubes, vortex, etc, but tried and true over time)
RMH-Custom (Batch, Oven, Cooktop, Greenhouse, sauna, hot water, pizza, stove-top, etc)
RMH-Exotic (materials, looks, ambiance)
RMH-Experimentors Corner
RMH-Building Code Approved (Updates)
RMH-
...find a place for that which has been proven to work repeatedly, long-term

I'm from the camp "I love it", "I'd like to build one someday", and don't really think I should because the build is so liquid, messy, time consuming, and experimental at this point.  I'd like to see us get to the point of having various items we can purchase and build our own RMH with tried and true methods and materials... like have pieces, Legos if you will.

Them's My 2 Cents

I see it as double burn triple heat. Burn the wood, burn the smoke: heat the burner, heat the mass, heat the home.

I am in the minority but I like the Prometheus heater because of its mystery and grandeur and ancient mythological connections. And the Prometheus allusion suggests a wonderful revolutionary thing handed down from the heavens, a saviour and benefactor of humanity as beneficial as fire itself. I think it could be really good.

Another idea is Slow Radiant Heater. Or Slow Radiant Stove. It’s less about quickly warming a space but keeping a steady heat and that is an important part. Though there are some other stoves that could describe.

Cobra or snake stove, for the traditional shape—with the upright head and long mass? Worm stove? Dragon stove? Muskr—no, that doesn’t quite work. Dragon could be good. There are long serpentine dragons, and plump round dragons. And they breathe fire! They also may eat your sheep. But a dragon stove won’t eat your sheep. I think there is already such thing as a dragon stove, etc. going around—too obvious a name. Maybe worm is better.

We are trying to get a workshop together to build several of these heaters here in Alabama. I was told to contact Uncle Mud. I am not sure if a name change will help or hurt the interest we are trying to garner for our heater builds. I can put it forth to my group who is working to put together this workshop. I am thinking in our area no one has really heard of a RMH so changing it to another name won’t matter except that many folks go to the internet to look it up. We would have to somehow get the name out there so they can see what it is and refer to the old name for a while?? I have wanted a RMH in my tiny house for years and have not finished my wall in the corner where I wanted it to go since I bought my house 8 years ago!! I still dream of a small RMH there and my partner does not feel it is practical. I do live in Alabama where it is not especially cold for long periods. I am very attracted to the efficiency of it. We live off the grid with solar and composting toilets so adding a heating system that would not burn much wood is my ideal dream. We are going to build the RMHs currently for our green houses. Green houses are not even a great use for the heater here in our state as we have a longer growing season here without green houses.  But I wanted to start somewhere getting this RMH technology in my area. I am truly hoping my other half sees the benefit and then we put one in my tiny house afterward!! I am good with the name radiant masonry heater and cannot think of a better name at this time. I do agree with the comment that it has been a little overwhelming to think of putting this type of heater in anywhere here due to the DIY aspect. But we are doing the workshop to determine if it is much easier than I expect. I did see one built and used at a Mother Earth conference but was not fond of the barrel for my living room so I have scouted more attractive designs ever since. The overwhelm comes more from making it look nice in my house. I am not a builder in any way shape or form. My partner is an amazing artist and builder as he makes Windsor rockers without electricity. He built almost everything on our property. But he is not on board! Thus the desire to put together this workshop next year!! If you have any suggestions as to how we can make the RMH famous in our area I am all ears!!!

An interesting read. I'd never heard of them before today- I've led a sheltered life. Masonry heater sounds like something for heating a small area of masonry. Doesn't suggest something for warming a home. Alternate words for masonry? Triple- trident? I thought everything coming out of America these days had to have the word tactical in the name somewhere

OK... I'm jumping in with my 2 cents...

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning to change a name that is very descriptive of the category of variants and pretty widely known. The "rocket" part of the name makes it exciting and lots of people recognize "rocket stove" or "rocket heater" even if they are not clear of the exact meaning. In my experience, it makes for a great conversation starter and the person remains engaged to learn more.

Perhaps I am missing some reasoning but the only reason I know of to eliminate the word "rocket" from the description is that it's is a trigger work for an insurance underwriter to deny insurance. To me, this is the least significant part of deciding to build a rocket mass heater. I know from experience that lots of research precedes the actual build so part of the education process is to simply impart to the builder that when it comes time to speak to your insurance agent that you just say you have a masonry heater. Is there some other compelling reason to change the name?

Glenn,

I think, and I suspect you will agree, interest in rmh should be about 1000x of what it is now.  So what is holding up the show?

I submitted my better world book to an authority on environmental stuff and the book was rejected because it advocated for heat that used petroleum.  Clearly, without reading the book, they saw something about "rocket" and assumed "rocket fuel."

Many people reject rmh because of codes or insurance.  "But we are covered with masonry heaters."

Many people reject rmh because all wood burning things spew out smoke.  "But we use the smoke as fuel."

Many people reject rmh because all wood burning things have chimney fires.  "But we use the creosote as fuel - we sorta domesticated the chimney fire."

I think that this tech-idea that people can do at home, will solve a list of global problems.  Yet interest today is about 10% of what it was 10 years ago, instead of 1000x.  

So I am making this thread so we can try this under a new name.  Maybe that is where things are stuck.

Why not just call it a masonry heater? When I talk to people unfamiliar with the technology, I explain mass heating in general, show them a masonry stove, then tell them a rocket mass heater is the diy version of a masonry stove.

In the multiple names for this tech, you see 3 variables: the core descriptor which is usually “mass” or “masonry”, the thing (usually “heater” or “stove”), and then an extraneous word to describe the style “Scandinavian” or “Russian “ or “rocket.”  For code inspectors you don’t want or need a new style to confuse them, you want it to blend in. Like instead of saying “straw bale” calling it “fiber insulation.”

If super-nice masonry stoves became more popular, then lots more people would want the less expensive diy version. RMHs aren’t popular because no one has heard of mass heating technology.

polly jayne smyth wrote:I meant to use water (or fill in the blank as I'm not a physicist) as the mass which holds/ stores the energy - not the burn tunnel.  Honestly I don't really know what I'm talking about... was imagining that water releases heat from objects 4x faster than air so perhaps that particular mass is sending the concept in the opposite direction as masonry holds it *longer* and I'm unsure about h2o... but I'd think there might be other materials out there I'm not thinking of which function as well or better if designed into the right system... irregardless of cost*?  Oil?  Denser rock (Polly - isn't that 'masonry' - well not if it's crystal)?

Simply, these are heaters that make use of masonry at the core. Having 'masonry' in the name gives some legal utility that 'mass' does not.

Emilie McVey wrote:I most prefer Smokeless Masonry Heater, although Paul thinks corporations would sink it.  I don't understand why, but I'm sure he's right.

How can one call the rocket heater with a barrel a masonry heater?  Because down the pipeline it pumps heat into cob which then radiates it?

The acronym for Smokeless would come out the same as Shaking My Head. That would convolute internet discussion of the heaters negatively.

Again, these heaters use masonry at the core to deal with the heat as a rule.

paul wheaton wrote:
I submitted my better world book to an authority on environmental stuff and the book was rejected because it advocated for heat that used petroleum.  Clearly, without reading the book, they saw something about "rocket" and assumed "rocket fuel."

Without pointing fingers which I suppose I still am, this is rather embarrassing for the authority person.  At the very least skim the book, or listen to your reply and give it another go.  I suggest another resubmission (apologies - knowing your level of efforts I'm sure you've already done this)...  grrrr

polly jayne smyth wrote:

paul wheaton wrote:
I submitted my better world book to an authority on environmental stuff and the book was rejected because it advocated for heat that used petroleum.  Clearly, without reading the book, they saw something about "rocket" and assumed "rocket fuel."

Without pointing fingers which I suppose I still am, this is rather embarrassing for the authority person.  At the very least skim the book, or listen to your reply and give it another go.  I suggest another resubmission (apologies - knowing your level of efforts I'm sure you've already done this)...  grrrr

Bottom line:  interest in rmh is 10% of what it was 10 years ago.  I would think that after all this effort, interest would be 1000x.  

We could attempt to go house-to-house, or expert-to-expert, and pay people $500 per hour to spend one full hour interacting with a knowledgeable rmh person - with the idea that we will force 100 million people to learn about rocket mass heaters at a total cost of 50 billion dollars.   OR we could try to figure out how to accomplish our goals on the cheap.  It seems that the name is causing problems, so I think it is worthwhile to contemplate a name that might work better.  If I happen to write a new book that is similar to BWB and submit it for review to similar entities, maybe they will actually read the whole thing rather than dismiss it after 60 seconds because they found an excuse to dismiss it.




Frankly, I thought I would put a couple of videos on youtube 15 years ago and the whole thing would take off and I would be a nobody in rocket mass heater stuff.  I made lots of vids, wrote lots of articles, put it into both of my books, the cards, then there are movies and the infographic ...   I have paid thousands to try to get the word out.  

I don't know if a name change will make any difference.  But I am thinking it is worth a try.

Has anyone gone house-to-house and/or expert-to-expert and asked even 100 random non-Permies people why they don't have a reburning masonry heater (my current favorite name suggestion), or the reasons why they would reject one if they even knew about it?

The name has, in at least one case, been a convenient excuse for rejection by expert gatekeepers, but what does the data say about regular people? I suppose one has to keep both in mind to address both the new build and retrofit cases.

Building a RMH seems like a daunting project for the uninitiated, and the more cut-and-dried pebble-style is a major step in the right direction in terms of bounding the complexity.

What is the smallest, simplest RMH that is still worth building? Would segmenting the thermal mass to add or subtract length later help buy-in? The easier it is to install or remove, the less risky it is to decide to install one. Is the installation process as easy as that for a more typical wood stove?

Dean Howard wrote:I tend to agree w/ the folks who feel a name change won't change much.  RMH is already an icon word that has been out there for years.  Maybe we should stick with RMH for now, but use a hyphen to create categories for all the ingenious ways people build these things.  This gives perspective, all in one place, like a Feature Article that stays on top of all things RMH and updates as needed.

RMH-Basic-Experimental (firebrick, barrel, manifold, cobb)
RMH-Basic-Full Plans (firebrick, cobb, barrel) plans could include Building Code accepted)
RMH-Portable-Medium Efficiency (Ceramic Fiber, Pebble "Style)
RMH-Stratification Style (Dragon, Matt Walker, etc.)  I've got one in my head that's more like a ceramic KashelOfen
RMH-High Efficiency (latest in double/triple burn, air venting, cold air tubes, vortex, etc, but tried and true over time)
RMH-Custom (Batch, Oven, Cooktop, Greenhouse, sauna, hot water, pizza, stove-top, etc)
RMH-Exotic (materials, looks, ambiance)
RMH-Experimentors Corner
RMH-Building Code Approved (Updates)
RMH-
...find a place for that which has been proven to work repeatedly, long-term

I think I agree with a general concept here about the name change, that attempting to divert the entire RMH 'movement' in this way could be more problematic than it is worth. I'd suggest to examine this in the context of a greater overall marketing strategy.

What I have seen of the RMH public image lately might be said to suffer from the "Baskin Robbins" problem. A display of 31 rotating flavours may be a great way to generate enough excitement in children to convince them to get daddy to spend some money on a quick sugary treat, but that is kinda the opposite of how an adult investing in the housing industry is going to be come to a decision.

There is an established body of research on how 'consumers' become easily overwhelmed and will not make a purchase when confronted by an excess of choices (or are more likely to make poor choices, which is why shopping centres are engineered to bring about this state of mind). I've heard some claim 'X' is an ideal number of choices, but think declaring a specific number is BS because it depends on the target audience and nature of the product.

I think the emphasis should be on defining a small number of sub-designs for the RMH and focusing on refining, replicating, and promoting these as clear options for the most common environments they are suitable for. The "pebble style" has been brought a long way in this direction, although I think the excellent movie/model produced with Andres would carry more weight if the 'juice box' development had been left out and perfected as a side project. Giving these sub-genres some of the good names being discussed seems more likely to flow in a beneficial direction than a unilateral name change. In fact, I'd say the Pebble Style is a prime candidate to be called "The Montana", as it's development was done there and it is indeed rugged and handsome.

Could we come up with robust data on what exactly the market of potential RMH adopters looks like? I hate the idea of reducing human beings to table and charts like this, but it seems to me that is the most reliable way to achieve results that make a quantitative impact as has been stated to be desired. I'd hope this could be a layer of development outside the 'core' of the RMH community that builds these because we are excited by all of the possibilities and do think coming in from cold weather to sit on a cosy mass is sort of a sugary treat...

paul wheaton wrote:Glenn, I think, and I suspect you will agree, interest in rmh should be about 1000x of what it is now.  So what is holding up the show?

Yes Paul, your suspicions are correct... I am in full agreement and can't understand why anyone, especially anyone already burning wood, is not prioritizing the build of an RMH as their #1 priority. I suspect that if you could bring people into a home with an RMH operating so they can see and feel for themselves that would be hugely impactful. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.

Offering up what I see as two major roadblocks:
- Getting people to reprioritize their priorities, which is close to impossible. I've have many people see my BB RMH and they are intrigued. Out of that population only one 1 person is of the midset that this should be a priority.
- Building any type of RMH takes effort by the person to have a vision, educate themselves, design and build. I live in a remote mountain community where you would think there are lots of self-sufficient and industrious folks. So far only 1 person is interested in building an RMH.

So, forgetting for a moment the people that are uneducated about the possibilities of clean heat by burning wood... it seem to me that we have as much of an education problem as well as a motivation issue. How to get people to take the hard road once with the long term benefit of the easy road in the future. I'm not a negative person and not trying to rain on the parade and maybe my circle of friends and community are not representative of the people we can reach.

I wish I knew a way to get people to deprioritize the things that have little benefit to a wholesome life and prioritize the simpler things that take effort but pay a lifetime of dividends. In the mean time, I'll keep shouting from the mountaintop just how fantastic a RMH is and why people need to stop procrastinating and just start planning. I'll be happy to share my experience with anyone that is willing to put in the effort and I know there are many others on the RMH forum that wiould do the same.

While I'm not crazy about those particular names... I don't think it matters for the whole world. I would consider a name change to be like a brand name coming from Wheaton Labs. Car vs Mustang. Computer vs HP Prodesk. Smart Phone vs iPhone. Rocket Mass Heater vs Montana Masonry Heater.

So Rocket and Mass are to technical for the uninitiated and misses the topic of heating with wood.  so I suggest Wood Efficiency Heater fallowed by my tag line: Burn the wood, burn the smoke: heat the burner, heat the mass, heat the home.

Is the idea to get people to build the heater for themselves? Because most people will never ever build anything for themselves, even if you handed them the materials for free.

Jay Wright wrote:Is the idea to get people to build the heater for themselves? Because most people will never ever build anything for themselves, even if you handed them the materials for free.

I think this thread is definitely taking two different paths - "could a change in the name garner renewed interest" vs "what do we do to increase adoption"

I've heard Paul mention multiple times the desire to occupy brain space i.e.: to get more people to simply consider the concept.
This has many benefits among them are a lowered barrier to entry when it comes to discussions (people putting up less of a fight or raising fewer concerns which have already been solved) and the possibility of reaching an individual who might actually consider trying to build one, if only they have enough time to mull the ideas over for themselves.

I could be wrong here, but I think the goal is less to get people to build them (in this phase of the game) and more about changing the rhetoric so that more people think about them.

Adoption is the end goal; yet if the conversations stall or, worse, fail to start as it seems with such a reduction in overall interest in the topic, how would adoption ever be possible?
If a change in the name causes 100,000 more people to think about Rocket Mass/Montana Masonry/Triple Burn Heaters... maybe 100 build them, and 10 become local builders.

I've heard Paul mention multiple times the desire to occupy brain space i.e.: to get more people to simply consider the concept.

This.

There will 100,000 people willing to build you a rocket mass heater if there were 10 million people wanting to pay to have one built.  

This means, to get started, we need to simply get brain space.  

After 15 years of pushing rocket mass heaters, experts of all sorts that should be rmh savvy say "dafukizzat?"

Alright!! I am convinced! I am going to build RMH, masonry heaters all over the place here in Alabama! We are going to get it out there and find people willing to help folks build them as well!!