Jennifer Richardson wrote:If we could have a do-over, what name would you use instead of "rocket mass heater?"
We got a letter from a very kind supporter who wants us to come up with a "sweet, wimpy name" for rocket mass heaters to make them sound less scary.
Paul also told me a story about an organization who refused to endorse them because they thought they literally ran on rocket fuel.
So if you were rebranding rocket mass heaters, what would you call them?
David Wieland wrote:Maybe it means I'm reckless, but I just found the rocket mass heater name intriguing, which led me to search for more info on both Permies.com and the WWW. Wimpy names are low energy ...
Don Ritter wrote:This is what someone who knows the history shared with me --
"Rocket stoves are not actually all that clean.
It already has a name, it is called the Walker Stove. If you want a better version just get plans from Matt Walker at Walker Stoves.
So leave the Rocket Mass heater where it is, an older technology that was a stage on the way to clean burning.
Dr TLUD has on his site about Rockets Stoves in regard to cooking. He is the one saying they are not really clean." [/b]
Perhaps this may be helpful or not....
Annie Collins wrote:
Glen Thomson wrote:I think the better name is HEWS heater, for High Efficiency Wood System. Or for fun, call it a Super Hughey system.
This is my favorite so far. It's short, simple, and quickly tells what it is. I would just maybe add "burning" to it so that it becomes High Efficiency Wood-burning System. And HEWS is easy to say as well as remember, too.
Douglas Alpenstock wrote:Don, with all respect, I think you or your contact are confusing rocket stoves with rocket mass heaters. The hot secondary reburn in the RMH should, in theory, make it quite a clean heater. I don't know if there is any hard emissions data available.
C. Letellier wrote:There is a bunch of hard data freely available thanks to Peter and others. Go dig way back on the donkey boards. The only real thing missing is a good measure of sub 2.5 particle emissions. Their equipment doesn't measure that and we know from the weight of the mineral content of wood that stoves they are saying only produce a bread bag of ash burning cords of wood had to produce more. Most likely reason is it went up the stack as invisible ash.
paul wheaton wrote:Maybe the thing to do is to say that rocket mass heaters are a subset of zero carbon heaters. And we can say that a zero carbon heater is something that meets certain criteria in cleanliness of burn and how much heat it holds in the house and stuff like that.
So a "zero carbon heater" could include many heaters that meet certain critera.
Kenneth Elwell wrote:(for those who would like to explain themselves to the authorities...)
or (probably a safer option...)
or (maybe too confusing...)
or (probably my favorite of this batch)
could be combined to be a METH STASH... (what's wrong with me?!)
Chris Kott wrote:Would a haiku do?
I made it from shit
This beautiful, efficient
No, I am not actually suggesting we rename RMHs using a haiku.
As its development was a collaborative effort over time, were it named after a person, it would have to be someone universally acknowledged as deserving of it. And probably dead, to be honest.
Lastly, as a sales concept, rather than being descriptive, you could attach a historically weighted moniker to it. I mean, make it feel like "Victory Gardens" or something like that, something that suggests not only personal benefit, but a thing of benefit done on the individual scale that strengthens the whole.
Victory Mass Heaters?