• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Re-use hot air ----> Double chamber cob oven.  RSS feed

 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi,
I want to make a wood fired oven.
It will be a cob oven.
I want to use my oven to bake bread and pizza and stuff.

After some searching, I came across this video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvrUrnEIQoo


(This cob oven is already discussed in this forum.)
What I like is that the gases coming from the oven will be burned in the chimney.
Okay, barely smoke from the chimney, great, but a huge energy loss!
(All this produces additional heat that goes into the air.)

I want to re-use the released heat to heat the fresh oxygen-rich air (which enters the oven).
(It seems to me that how warmer the air entering the oven, the better.)
But how do I do that?
1) It must be (reasonably) be simple to construct.
2) The fresh incoming air must be heated as efficiently as possible.
3) The air intake may not influence, the current aircirculation in the oven. (Otherwise, it may no longer work.)
4) If the oven is on temperature, and coal are removed, this system may not make the oven easier to cool.  (eg by use of pipes.)
5) I can use tubes in which the fresh air is heated. But it may just be that this will reverse the airflow. (That air is 'going out', instead of 'in' the oven.)

Who has any idea or suggestion?
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
How about putting a stand off on top and use the hot exhaust as a cooker or warmer for other foods or to heat a kettle of water?
 
                            
Posts: 105
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You do not want to preheat the air entering the oven, it is counter productive.

When you heat air it expands so fewer pounds of air per cubic foot enter, the oxygen content is reduced as there is less per cubic foot. Fire is the oxidation of the wood.

Bring as cold of air as possible to feed the fire and use your recirculation methods of the heated gases to heat areas beyond the firebox itself.

One design thought I would express as a good possibility, make your oven larger than one might think and split it into an over under configuration, warm the bottom oven with the fire box and force the flue gases through a "duct" that separates the two, the upper oven will be warmed by conduction from the bottom and the duct giving you a high temp and low temp oven, on high fire both ovens serve as an oven, on lower fire rates, the upper oven could be used as a warmer or proofer for breads etc.
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ron:
I already conceived the plan to use the exhaust for an stove.
I have previously experimented with the "rocket stove mass heater", and the "Lucia stove".

rocket stove mass heater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtFvdMk3eLM&feature=fvsr
Lucia stove:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsH_Gh-n2Mg

I have made a combination between these two; I have changed the combastion chamber of the rocket stove, with the lucia stove. (letś say I have made a Lucia mass heater  )
If you wish to heat for a longer time than 1 hour, you better can make use of the rocket stove, instead of the lucia stove, (You can feed wood much easier into the rocketstove.) now I will use the oven for that.

This will explain:
OVEN WITH STOVE:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
OVEN NOT USED. HEAT FOR A SHORT PERIOD WITH "LUCIA STOVE":


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Professor Rich
Mmmh, I think you are right. I did not understand why the stove burned so good a few weeks ago. It was freezing 5 degrees outside, this will explain.

I will share my findings on this forum about the progress.
Thanks,
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The first link is to a video that is well known around here as it is by the site owner Paul. Ernie and Erica (in the video) are helpful members here too.

The second link is to a stove that is cool, but looks expensive.
I'm not quite sure why you would put a fan in a RMH unless it was just to assist at start up.

I thought that you were looking to get more usage out of the exhaust heat of a cob oven, that's why i suggested to use as a cooker or heat a pot of water. I see that you have already thought of this.
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hey Ronie,

Making a Lucia stove is very easy.
It is inexpensive and easy to make yourself.
And the fan is a part I also did not understand.    You do not need it, but I also have never tried one.
The rocket stove burns hotter than the Lucia stove. (I think so. I'm not sure.)
But the lucia stove is easy quick and mobile. And you can burn almost everything in it!
I have tried to heat up a big olie drum with it. (Lucia stove 20 x 25 cm) The highest temperature I've achieved is 350 degrees (On top of the cookingplate).
I'm still experimenting with sizes and distances and stuff.

This is how I made my first one. A sort of a prototype:   

1) Take a soda can, and cut of the top and bottom. (Spare the tapered portion of the soda can.)

2) Find a second can that fits into the soda can. (Close)
3) Leave the bottom in the can. (Top must be open.)
4) Cut holes in the can (About 1 / 1.5 mm of size.) 2 rows: One row 0.8 inch from the top and the second row 0.6 inch from the bottom.
5) Shove the can in the soda can from the top. (Note: Do not close the open bottom of the soda can! Leave enough space for air intake.)

Fill the can with wood chips.
To just below the upper row of holes.
Fire with a little alcohol. (Or something.)
Make sure that enough air can be sucked into the bottom (hole) of the soda can.

If it stops burning you will have biocharcoal. If not: If it burns all; The holes are to big.


.
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The temp in the RMH is a lot higher than 350. Some are saying 2000 F. If you wanted to burn other bio fuels in the RMH, it seems to me that it could be done with a little thought.

It sounds like the Lucia would make char if char is what you are after.

I have made small rocket cook stoves and heaters with coffee cans and they get quite hot and make some good smoked foods as well. Also they burn very small amount of wood.

I don't know why i would change to a Lucia. The Lucia that you describe seems a lot like what people were calling something else early on Youtube - wood gasification stoves i think.

 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It is true: The Lucia-stove is a Wood-gasification-stove.

The reason why the Lucia-stove appealed to me because it is climate neutral.
Let me explain:
A tree extract CO2 from the air, and give back oxygen.
If you cut a tree:
* And let the tree lying down. (Rotten) All CO2 will be returned into the air.
* If you burn the wood, (Complete) It will return much more CO2 into the air, including other (Harmful) gasses.

The main advantage of the Lucia-stove is that
* No other harmful gases will come into the air, (A clean burn: You will only burn the gas, with a nice clean blue flame.)
* And that the amount of CO2 will remain equal. (If you do not burn the carcoal.)
* You burned less wood, less CO2
* You will enrich the ground by giving back the carcoal.
* If you make use of prune-wood the trees will be better debauche/shoot/run out? (How do you say that?)

The main advantage of a Wood-gasification-stove or a Rocket-stove are almost similar to that of the Lucia-stove. 
Two major differences:
* The only reasen you reduce the CO2 emission is because you burn less wood.
* You keep nothing to give back to the ground.

My current Lucia-stove is nothing more than an ordinary wood gasification stove.
Because it burns "almost all" ash. (It can suck in too much air.)
I have made a movie of my current stove in action.
It can burn so hard, it is almost burning my socks off. 
I will send you a link if I uploaded it.

In my next attempt to make a Lucia-stove, I will make sure that the size of the holes can be set during burning.
In that case I can choose; Fire all or just until the coals.
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I uploaded my video to youbube. (Itś a little bit poor.)
But it wil show you that it is burning very fast/hot. (No fan.)
I certainly need a way to control the power of it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-QNTcfxbLGc?hl=nl&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-QNTcfxbLGc?hl=nl&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNTcfxbLGc
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
That's quite a cool wood gas stove you made. I haven't looked at YouTube much lately so I don't know what others have been doing.

I don't see how your stove is making char? It seems that all the wood should oxidize leaving little to no char. Have you burned it completely and found char in it? Or perhaps you starve the O2 (somehow?) and make char.

How do you describe a Lucia stove as compared to wood gas stoves?

When a RMH burns wood, its oxidation of wood, is not much different than a wood gas stove. When the RMH first starts it is not as efficient as when it gets hot. After the rocket is hot, it should oxidize wood as well as your wood gas stove.

The RMH is used to heat people so the char is not as important as the heat is needed/desired at the moment. (Most folks, I've met, heat beyond need and go for comfort.)

It is an error to say that the natural decay of a tree (bio degradation) places less CO2 into the environment than burning the tree. However, the making of char will slow some of the CO2 from entering the atmosphere until much later (maybe for 1000 years or more), but every atom in the wood winds up back in the environment eventually.  It seems that bio char would be beneficial to my soil, if I had a reason to make bio char other than just to be making the char for my soil.

What i am saying is that it seems best to me to burn the sticks in a RMH to heat and not to make char.  As much of the yahoo that is made of CO2 in the atmosphere, the living plants grab the CO2 and put it back into solid form in a short amount of time. The environmental "goodness" of the RMH is gained partly  from the small amount of wood that is used to heat a space, and partly from the energy used to collect the wood. Compare the amount of energy it takes to heat with oil or gas or even with a less efficient wood stove and the RMH comes out on top as environmentally "good."  (One might make a case that a solar heater comes out on top, but the sun doesn't shine all the time. The sticks for a RMH could be considered as natures energy batteries.)

You may be able to make a case of heating a home while making char is environmentally "good" I'm not sure. But making char at lower temps and restricting air, starves O2 to the burning process and the result is a release of gases that are not oxidized as completely as when oxidizing at higher temps (such as achieved in the rocket stoves).  A stove that made char and then released the gases at a low temp then burned the released gases at a higher temp, (and you needed the char for something like soil enrichment) might be a very good idea. Syngas might be a byproduct of char production that could be used too.

So i'm not saying that wood gas production isn't "good" just saying that it is not right for everyone all the time.





 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
First of all, my stove is just an attempt to make the lucia stove.
Unfortunately it became just a normal wood gasification stove, because the holes are to big. It burns very well, and it leaves allmost no ashes.

In my next attemt I will make ajustable holes. So I can tune it.(The air intake)

What about the release of gases that are not oxidized completely as you said, the lucia stove is burning with a blue flame. I think that is hot enough.
But it is not burning the wood:
1) Hot gasses (Sucked to the bottom) will make charcoal of it,
2) goes up trough the double wall (Mixing with oxigen)
3) and coming in again, and then are burning on top (Leaving no oxigen for the wood to burn.
4) Any gases that would not fully burn (If that is the case) can burn a little higher (4 cm) where oxigen is coming into the chimney.

I do not have a monopoly on this wisdom, it is not my invention. 
Also all the wisdom I have only around the Internet.
I try it out and try to make my own conclusions.

The lucia stove appealed to me, but to me it is not 100% Necessary. But a very interesting thought, and perhaps useful.
I also dit not make a choice between the Rocket stove ore a Wood gasification stove.
They all have their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm still looking for the best of all (For me.), and a way to merge it.
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
OK so your stove isn't making much char? Does the Lucia stove use a fan to pull hot gas down to make the char - then  the fan is shut off before burning the char? That is what i'm trying to understand is how are hot gases forced down? And what is starving the wood from getting oxygen?

It is hard for me to understand what is going on when i don't know what makes a Lucia stove so that you call it Lucia and how it differs from a wood gas stove? Does the fan make the difference? I've seen wood gas stoves with fans and nobody called it Lucia...so does the Lucia have the fan and a rifle in its barrel or did Lucia just take a stove with a fan in it and give it his name?
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Once you have time, you should watch these movies on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI0NvG5EAJg&feature=BF&list=PLDCEDA35FD4E3B7DC&index=1
Watch all six. 
Here Nathaniel Mulcahy explains very clearly how the lucia stove exactly works, what it does and why it was designed.
That will probably answer all your questions.

I also found something interesting.
About kw and shape in movie 4

 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
About carbon offsets:
What are carbon offsets? How are these offsets measurable?
http://measurableoffsets.com/
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well i was hoping to get you to tell me what a Lucia stove is.

I don't watch much youtube until the end of the month. My internet is from an air card so i have a limit to how much i watch high megabite videos.

 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This is what Nathaniel Mulcahy explains about the Lucia-stove in the first part of the movie:

The Lucia-stove was originally conceived as a way to avoid having wood or charcoal used.
In many country that's important, in other countrys that's essential:
In Darfur where the average dayly cost for fuel-wood is 2 dollars a day, and the average dayly cost for food is 5 cents a day.
We have a 40:1 ratio between fuel and food, that is an inappropriate solution.
The Lucia-stove is made to NOT use wood or charcoal.
Charcoal is even worst than wood: It takes 7 Kilo of wood to make 1 Kilo of charcoal.
It is a unsustainable solution.
The idea then also is: In ecoculture (Not in developing nations) by depending more and more on chemical fertilizers;
We rob the soile carbon to a fraction to what it used to be.
The soil fertility without the use of aditional chemical fertilizers or petroleum biofertilizers is nil in many places.
What this the lucia stove allowe is;  I can take fuel that is to small to use in a regular stove, and use that to cook, and
afterwards I am left with carbon wich I can put back into the soil, and avoid using more water and more chemical fertilizers.
If you feel biochar, (What is a leftover in the Lucia-stove after burning.) it is very soft. (It is mostly air)
What is left over is:
A high level of carbon wich is good for the soil, and a luxury condominium for microbes.
It is a very perfect environment for microbes to grow, it also allows water to stay in.

This is what I have found on their website: http://worldstove.com/about-2/faq/

FAQ #1. How could a million stove help save the world?

    FOUR QUICK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:

    Better stoves can…

       1. reduce indoor- and outdoor air pollution.
       2. reduce the amount of biomass burned for fuel.
       3. reduce emission of Greenhouse gases and particles.
       4. produce biochar by which carbon can be removed, for centuries, from the air.

    NOT SO QUICK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:

       1. Indoor air pollution results in 1.6 million premature deaths per year, mainly in women and children. Many of these deaths occur in the half world which cooks with open fires or inefficient biomass stoves. Efficient, clean burning stoves can reduce this mortality. As one example, women cooking over solid fuel fires in unventilated areas have twice the risk of developing cataracts than do those using gas stoves. (International Journal of Epidemiology 2005;34:702–70.Burning of non-fossil fuel (wood, dung, and trash) is the source of a vast brown cloud that hovers over much of South Asia and the Indian Ocean every winter. (Örjan Gustafsson, et al, 2009. Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion? Science 323: 495–49. More efficient stoves would improve the health for billions of people.
       2. An open fire applies about 7-12% of the combustion energy to cooking; other small stoves achieve 43%. LuciaStoves reach 93% (calculated on the basis of fuel available in pyrolyzation mode). This means that the LuciaStove releases more energy than do other small stoves, and it does it with just over half (55%) of the fuel, sequestering the rest in char. With open fires, much of the fuel escapes as smoke and flammable gas, and that’s why they are inefficient and smoky. In fact, when open fire cooking is regularly employed, it consumes about one cubic meter of wood (or equivalent) per person per year. Worse yet , collecting this fuel takes a lot of time and effort, often in dangerous circumstances. Efficient, clean burning stoves can reduce fuel needed, smoke released, and time lost.

       3. The high efficiency of the LuciaStove allows cooking and heating with less fuel than would other stoves. Less fuel consumed means reduced emissions of Greenhouse gases. Also, the emissions are filtered through the developing char, where particles can be trapped.

       4. The LuciaStove converts about 30% of the fuel weight to biochar. Biochar is up to 80% carbon and very resistant to decay. If collected and buried (for good ecological and economic reasons discussed in FAQ #3 and FAQ #4), this actually reduces the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

FAQ #2. Is there enough biomass around that converting this to biochar would make a difference in climate change?

    QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:
    James Lovelock recently suggested that, “There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste – which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering – into non-biodegradable charcoal and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.” (See Vince, G. 2009. Interview with James Lovelock. New Scientist, 201(No 2692), pp. 30-31)

    NOT SO QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

    According to Strand and Benford (2009), atmospheric CO2 carbon is accumulating at the rate of about 4?6 Pg per year. (Pg, petagram = 1015 g, = 1 gigaton) To have a significant impact on that rate of increase of CO2, the technology must remove and sequester at least 0.5 Pg per year. Those authors report that the above-ground crop residues produced globally in 2006 were about 5 Pg. Since dry crop residue biomass contains on average 40% carbon, up to 2 Pg crop residue carbon is produced annually. (See Strand, S.; Benford, G. 2009. Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, 43, 1000-1007). In other words, there is more than enough agricultural waste to fulfill Lovelock’s suggestion. In fact, agricultural waste, now viewed as a disposal problem, is actually a valuable energy source and it presents us with four times what we need to have a significant carbon negative effect with char. (See Pacala,S.; Socolow,R., 2004. Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies: Science 305 (5686) 968-972.)

FAQ #3. What are the agricultural benefits of producing biochar?

    QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

    When added to many soils, biochar reduces the loss of water and nutrients to drainage and runoff. The cost of fertilizer has risen 45.8% recently and reducing its loss can benefit both growers and the environment. Biochar may increase the activities of beneficial microbes, and many studies indicate that yields of crops are increased.

    NOT AT ALL QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

    The effects of adding char to soils are many: improvements in water and nutrient holding capacities have been clearly demonstrated, especially for sandy soils. (See references 1 and 2, just below). The dramatic increases in yield reported in some soils and circumstances point to broader effects, certainly involving profound changes in soil microbial- and mycorrhizal activities. These too have been well documented, and we can only say that this is an area of extremely active research, one we don’t pretend to summarize here.
    To learn more, see the following:

       1. Glaser, Bruno, Johannes Lehmann, and Wolfgang Zech (2002) Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal – a review, Biology and Fertility Soils 219, 223
       2. Steiner, Christoph, Wenceslau G. Teixeira, Johannes Lehmann, Thomas Nehls, Jeferson Luis, Vasconcelos de Macêdo, Winfried E. H. Blum, Wolfgang Zech (2006) Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant & Soil 291: 275-290. “The application of charcoal significantly reduced leaching of applied mineral fertilizer. The increased ratio of uptake to leaching due to charcoal application indicates a high efficiency of nutrients applied with charcoal.”

FAQ #4. What are the economic benefits to the stove owner of using WorldStove products?
    QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

    With these highly efficient stoves, less fuel is consumed and, if biochar produced is collected, it can actually be sold on the open market or used to improve your garden soil.

FAQ #5. A million stoves is a lot of stoves. How do you plan to produce, sell, and distribute that many stoves?

    TWO QUICK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:

       1. All WorldStove products have been designed for mass production. (with the exception of some fireplace inserts which must be custom made).
       2. And not all of our stoves are small. A large biomass converter is the equivalent of hundred of little stoves. At present, the largest burner we have built, good for converting agricultural waste to thermal energy and char, takes in about 500 kg of biomass per hour, generating 1.2 mega kW of thermal energy and about 150 to 200 kg of biochar (depending on the biomass). The LuciaStove, for example, consumes about 200 grams per hour, so our large unit, is equal to more than 2500 LuciaStoves!]

    NOT SO QUICK ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

    Mass production of critical components has several benefits: it allows consistently high quality at a minimum of cost. Produced in our facilities, these critical pieces can be shipped fully assembled or disassembled. Assembly at point of use not only saves shipping costs but it also creates employment opportunities in different parts of the world.

    Obviously there is more to this story, and you can read more in other FAQ on this site. Or, if you prefer, don’t hesitate to contact us through the “Contact us” tab in our webpage.

FAQ #9 What’s the difference between carbon positive, carbon neutral, and carbon negative?

    QUICK EXPLANATION

    Carbon positive activities include anything which adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
    Carbon neutral activities do not change the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Carbon negative activities reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere

    NOT SO QUICK EXPLANATION

    Consuming fossil fuels, such as oil, coal or gas is carbon positive since these add carbon dioxide to today’s atmosphere. Harvesting trees for firewood or for extending agricultural fields is similarly carbon positive.

    In contrast, the consumption of biomass such as agricultural waste, sawdust, scrap wood from forests or yards, etc. is carbon neutral since, with or without our intervention, this biomass, would soon be released to the atmosphere by decay.

    Thus, stoves which consume otherwise waste biomass are largely carbon neutral, (not totally neutral since harvesting these takes some energy as does converting sawdust to pellets.) Stoves that produce char, if they burn biomass in the process, are only partially carbon neutral, but, the resulting char is a carbon negative product. Because this char contains carbon recently drawn from the atmosphere, and it will resist decay for centuries

    NOT SO QUICK EXPLANATION

    Carbon Neutral:
    We (meaning, the whole world, now, and for millions of years of years past) have depended on photosynthesis in green plants to produce ALL biomass. ) In photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water and energy are combined to produce
    energy rich biomass and oxygen. (Tiny exceptions are found in sulfur springs in ocean depths but these are irrelevant here.)

    In the reverse of photosynthesis, biomass and oxygen are combined, in fires, or in respiration within ourselves or other living creatures, to release carbon dioxide and energy (which keeps us going!) So…. If today’s photosynthesis is balanced by today’s respiration, or fires, nothing is really changed. This is Carbon Neutrality. Burning wood, for example, is carbon neutral. However, Eric Johnson (Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 165–16 rightly points out that forests are enormous reservoirs of biomass so, when they are burned for fuel or charcoal, vast quantities of CO2 are released to the atmosphere and this is certainly carbon positive. Burning waste wood such as fallen trees, branches, sawdust, agricultural waste, etc., all of which would decay anyway, is nearly completely neutral. We say “nearly” since some energy consumed in gathering and processing. For example, converting sawdust to pellets takes some energy.

    Carbon Positive:
    Hundreds of millions of years ago, green plants produced great masses of biomass which were eventually buried and converted into gas, coal and oil as fossil fuels, rich in both carbon and energy. Until about, 1860, with the development of coal and oil as energy sources, this carbon was locked safely away, underground. Now it is being released and many studies indicate that it is an important source of the carbon dioxide increase in our atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels is Carbon Positive.

    Carbon Negative:
    If today’s waste biomass is converted to biochar and buried, it will remain there for hundreds of years. The carbon it contains (about 80% by weight) is thus removed from the atmosphere. This is a Carbon Negative product. According to James Lovelock, burying char is the one effective thing we can do to pull down atmospheric carbon dioxide. (See FAQ #2. Is there enough biomass around that converting this to biochar would make a difference in climate change?)

FAQ #10. How do WorldStove products differ from other small stoves?
    QUICK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:

    WorldStove are different in that…

       1. They are designed for mass production.
       2. Guaranteed for five years.
       3. Can be adapted to local fuels.
       4. Can be adapted to local cooking customs.
       5. Emissions of flammable gases and particles are greatly reduced.
       6. Char is produced automatically.
       7. Fuel can be added during cooking or heating.
       8. Critical components can be shipped disassembled.
       9. Individual components can be replaced at low cost without use of tools, extending life.
      10. Most components of LuciaStoves are made from recycled materials and, in the end, can be recycled themselves.

    NOT SO QUICK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:

       1. The efficiency of WorldStove products depends on complex geometries of critical components. Individual machining of these would be prohibitively expensive and also require extensive quality control.
       2. These critical components are guaranteed for five years.
       3. Although WorldStove products consume a wide variety of fuels, they can be tuned to
          locally abundant materials. For example, rice husks and wheat straw do not have the same fuel characteristics, but we can adjust for such differences.
       4. WorldStove products are already in service in institutions where cooking involves batches of 70 liters of material but the same burner can simmer a pot of tea.
       5. Flammable gases such as methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen are reduced by passing through the flames, and particles are trapped in the char.
       6. Pyrolyzation occurs when biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen. With the LuciaStove stove, pyrolyzation begins almost immediately, goes to completion and then stops automatically. In some other small stoves, char is obtained only if the process is stopped by closing the burn chamber or, more difficult still, by dumping the burning fuel into water. In either method, some fuel may not be completely pyrolyzed, thus reducing the value of the char. Furthermore, when the burning fuel if plunged into water, an unhealthy, not to say dangerous, burst of steam and carbon monoxide occurs. This quenching in water also modifies char quality still more. Finally, also the pH of the resulting char can be controlled.
       7. Unlike some other small stoves, fuel can be added as needed to prolong cooking or heating.
       8. Critical components can be shipped disassembled and then assembled at point of use. This saves shipping costs and assembly at point of use creates local employment.

 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks, that is a ho lotta information. I understand the carbon cycle fairly well. If the Lucia Stove works as good as they are saying, then it should help a lot of people to cook with all kinds of biomass.

If you want to heat a home, I think that the rocket mass heater is the better option. Someone might make a case for the Lucia as a good home heater, but I think it would not do as well at heating if it is making char at the same time.

Lucia does sound promising as a cook stove... Not sure how they are making a case for it to be used inside as a cook stove... Do they put it inside an oven then vent it outside?
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No that is just my idea; Putting a stove in my oven for just a quick heat (For warming and or cooking) and preheating. (A preheated oven produces less smoke by starting.)
And maybe for heating the oven. (But I am not sure. It could be that a normal wood oven influence baking bread in a possitive way.)

And yes the Lucia-stove is produced in the first place as a cooking stove.
But the have made Lucia stoves also for cooking for a whole village.
In that case the Lucia stove has a different top: (Without making the stove realy bigger.)

Tops that produce 3.5 Kw of heat (Let 1 liter water cook in 10 minutes)
Tops that produce 100 Kw of heat (Let 1 liter water cook in 10 seconds)

So, I do not know what is better for home heating. That will depend entirely different things.
As ease of use, size and shape, consumption, mobility (Put it outside on the terrace.) And so on.
And here I fully agree with you, these arguments will also be part of personal needs.

.
 
                          
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There is something better than making a Lucia stove. Simply buy one.   
But the sell the stove in quantities of 500 or more. 
 
ronie dee
Posts: 620
Location: NW MO
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have a hard time justifying buying their product as i have been building my own rocket cook stoves for several years.

The rocket mass heater/bench seems to me to be the best way to heat in my area. I can't imagine anything other than solar to even come close to the RMH.
 
Oh the stink of it! Smell my tiny ad!
Video of all the PDC and ATC (~177 hours) - HD instant view
https://permies.com/wiki/65386/paul-wheaton/digital-market/Video-PDC-ATC-hours-HD
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!