Hello, I have not posted in these forums for a few years. However, when I saw the kickstarter and saw the focus, I had to get involved!!! Such an awesome project!!! Then when I saw that $100 supporters get 12 physical copies of the book, I thought about all the people I could give this book to ... and if I had my name in it ... that would be really, really, really cool. So, my "belly when up to the bar" and I happily pledged $100 (on the first day). Then all these "stretch goals" came up and I said ... WAAAYYYY COOOOLLL!!! This is the best $100 ($115) I have ever spent. Thank you Paul and Shawn and everyone else responsible for making this happen. This has been long overdue.

I have a small problem with this map. I commented on this on the other comment string.

I really, really, really like the idea of a map. Just not this one.

There are many reasons why. Most of that deals with control of information.

Without logging onto permies, I was able to put a pin in my location on the map. I could be anyone, not just a member of this forum (with an account and everything).

Anyone (perhaps a troll) can move my location. I can go right now and move people location, after all, my location had been moved since yesterday. All it takes in one person to severely wreck this map (troll or not).  

Too much information. Many people would be OK with sharing what state they live in, but not their physical address. If I only shared that, would I put a pin in Olympia (our state capital in Washington State). A location filter would need to be installed on this map for those who do not want to give too much information. I think it is interesting that Paul Weaton's pin is on International Gaming Technology in Missula, Mt.

Too much information. People can put in multiple locations. This may not be a big problem but maybe they could do a change of address when they move.

Names are not clickable. One of the points of this is to be able to contact like minded people in our local area or where we travel. This is a great forum to send a purple moosage without giving out real e-mail addresses. On the map, I could see a name, then I would have to go to permies to search for the name (this is a real hassle if the name is not connected to a permies account).


Needs to be more controlled. I am forced to conclude that the map is a weak substitute for a map of members of permies.com. I still believe this should be some code implemented by the site itself for a "map" view-able on the permies site. Sorry. I really, really, really like the idea.

My two cents:

I think this would be great!!! Often I feel like I have no one to share my successes and failures with in my local community. You know the ones that are traveling this unusual path (Paul W. might call is eco-4 and higher people). Yea, they are just waiting for my failures but they take my successes with a big grain of salt.

Paul Wheaton wrote:

Set it up and we can promote it!  

Yea, that is OK, I think but maybe we can make this a bit simpler at first.

Now, what I am suggesting is re-writing some code on the permies.com site, hence the apprehension ( I am assuming) from Paul. However, I think that is about the only way it could be done.

I think that in your "personal preferences" there could be a check box or something that allows a permies member to be "seen on a map".
Then in that list you check the box that is the amount of information you are willing to publish (Name and location). The "amount of information" I mean is a level of information on your location. So, you could have a check box on "country", "State", "County", "City", "Zipcode". I would not get more detailed than zip code for privacy reasons. Then the member simply checks one of those boxes.

For the "promote it" part, permies.com could have a special page for the "map". This can start out as a searchable data area where a  person can look at "lists". These lists can be clickable member names. So, when searching a level of detail, a list could pop up. Then if a member wants to contact the other member they could send a purple moosage.

As time goes on, this list of lists (or database) could be set to the backdrop of an actual map (like google maps or something).

Unfortunately, I think the programming should be coming from permies.com itself. "Unfortunately" because you all are pretty busy over there. I would be happy to help if I can.

Hi guys.

Sorry about the people being mean. Some people are mean and like to judge other people (there I go judging people).

Growing up, I remember hunting for Shantrel mushrooms. I guess they are highly sought after, I don't know, I just picked them for the family (I do not like mushrooms). I would also say that the peninsula may have many other kinds. I am thinking in some of the Birch trees could have Chaga. In the woods there may be Turkey Tail or Chicken of the Woods. And I never looked but I would bet in some of the second growth fir stands of timber there might be some White Truffle.

Locally, there is a lot of information. I just googled it and found a few links for you to follow:
https://radicalbotany.com/category/fungi-and-mushrooms/
https://www.facebook.com/OlympicPeninsulaMushrooms/
http://olymushroom.org/

As for people who commercially deal with the stuff I would look at Paul Stamet's mushroom site called Fungi Perfecti Who is an expert on fungus in the Olympia, Washington area. I hope this helps.

Here is an update on my research into SciShow channel on Youtube.

Discussion Forum. This channel has one. It is interesting to see all the suggestions people write for shows for them to do. These suggestions come one every 3 to 5 days.

Their world views: Well I watched a few of their videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8pjnjZcF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIEg-Ei_BCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tzaWOdvGMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI&list=PLB3FCEEAC84884760&index=4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmjtA1R0qVM&list=PLB3FCEEAC84884760&index=5

These deal with garbage in the ocean, global climate change, GMO, curing cancer and other stuff. I post these links because this is what I am using to form an opinion as to how the channel will work with issues that permies would have.

What questions to pose? On my next post to this stream, I will have a strategy for posting to the facebook, twitter and youtube channel for SciShow. I hope other people reading this will join me in posting some of the questions that will help with the "world domination" some people (Paul W.) are trying to achieve. It is just, what to ask ... I am working on it.

Hi everyone.

For those who do not know what SciShow Youtube Channel is, I have linked it here. Their by line is "We hate not knowing things". It looks cool and they have about 3.5 million subscribers. Almost every video they produce will get 1 million views. In the videos, they do a lot of research to find explanations of the topic they are talking about. This is a great venue for learning about stuff scientifically for the masses.

Them doing a video about any aspect of permaculture would be huge for the cause. Is it the right time? Is there enough for them to research? What topics could they choose? Agriculture? Energy? Heating? Home building? Community?

Personally, I think the time is right to recognize that many of the practices of permaculture can be scientifically justified. It is past time to show the "world" needs to be "dominated" by biology rather than chemistry. It solves so many problems and dispels so many fallacies. The studies exist that prove the approach is sound and should be on a forum for the masses to see.

I think what I will do is subscribe to the SciShow channel. And with Paul Wheaton's blessing (or without) I could pose some specific questions to the channel that can scientifically be proved. You know, small steps toward people realizing that permaculture is at the end of that journey of knowledge. Does that sound fair?

edit: my thought here is that if a question is popular enough, they would investigate. And I mean a simple question. I will post in a second with the questions.

Dylan Gillies

Hi and welcome.

I grew up in Hoodsport on the Hood Canal. This is an area I love a great deal. At the bottom of this post you will see a link to another comment stream from a Carol Ochs from San Diego. She is looking to move to the east side of the Hood Canal. On that comment stream I put in a bunch of stuff about the Hood Canal and area.

While the area is not very densely populated, it is a place with a lot of tourist late spring to early fall. So there is an ebb and flow of people in the region. The people who are there all year are good people. Since it is Western Washington, mostly liberal, Democrat, but there is more of an independent vibe. I assume by posting on this forum, you are looking for people who are more "permies" type of people to interact with? They are all over the place in Western Washington (more so than here in Eastern Washington). I have seen people posting from Bothel, Seattle, Bellingham, Orchas Island (some pretty famous people there).

Doing permaculture in this area is mostly a no brainer because of the amount of rain. That has made the soils "successionaly" more fungal dominated as evidence by all the trees. So I would choose to do permaculture things that capitalize on that.

I personally love the rain. In Hoodsport about 90 inches a year. I love having the sea (Hood Canal) in my front yard and the mountains (Olympics) in my back yard. I think you and your father will love it here (sorry, there). So let me be the first to welcome you to the neighborhood.


https://permies.com/t/56401/real-estate/homestead-farming-culture-Western-WA

Hi;

One last thing about the septic system. The system I talked about at $30 to $35k was for a house on Finch creek in Hoodsport. There the water table is a foot or two below ground. If you are on a small hill, the water table will be lower. I think it is like a "sand vault" kinda thing. If you are on the canal or living on one of the creeks or rivers that feed the south part of the canal, they may insist on this type. The expense is shipping in the sand and the back hoe and stuff. And, of course, Belfair has that sewer system now, if you go there.

But Potlach to the Dosewallups river water shed (Brinnon) puts you on the east side of the canal (sea in the front door, Olympics out the back). But most of the towns that have anything are Brinnon in the North and Shelton (12 miles beyond Potlach) in the South. And of course, Belfair and Union on the "hook".

Carol Ochs:

Hi, again. So ...

Hood Canal is actually a fjord. because of that, water from the Puget Sound spills over a "shelf" to come into the Hood Canal. This "shelf" is about at Bangor or Seabeck. This shelf is like 100 feet down but the canal is like 150 feet deep. So, the canal has a natural mixing problem. If no one lived, fished or cut trees down around it, there would usually not be a low oxygen problem but it is delicate. Since there are people doing things around it, nutrient gets into the canal but it does not have a good mixing connection with the rest of the Puget Sound.

Therefore, most of the problem I mentioned starts at the "shelf" and gets worse the farther south you go. By the time you get to the mouth of the Skokomish river (Skokomish Indian Reservation) water shed or the Union River (Belfair) watershed you have most of the problem. So, I would say this is mostly a Mason County problem (not a Kitsap county thing). However, there are a bunch of parties trying to fix it, The National Forest Service, National Parks Service, Skokomish Tribe, City of Belfair, City of Hoodsport and so on. To put it into perspective if I were a guessing man, I would say that this is 85% a problem for Mason county and 15% for Kitsap. I would guess it is about 60% a problem of Skokomish and Union river water sheds. Another 10% Finch Creek(Hoodsport) and the creeks at Lilliwap, Potlatch up to Eldon. Another 10% from the drainages between Skok and Union Rivers. On the east side of the canal, there is not much of a contribution to the dissolved oxygen problem and at Seabeck, I am guessing practically nothing.

Who is talking about this? Well The Kistap Sun helps provide information. However, our local paper of choice was the Shelton paper The Mason County Journal.

Who are the real people talking about this. Paul Hunter (Hunter Farms, Skokomish valley) has a farm and is effected by the stuff going on, I went through grade school to high school with him. Dr. Mike Pavel, a Skokomish Indian (he does not necessarily speak for the tribe), who may know the issues of the Indians better than I. Ron Gold, he was our scout leader and I worked with him in the Forest Service (Sivilculture). He brings most of the government/environmental perspective. Donna Simmons (Hoodsport), an environmentalist activist on the canal for the last 40 years.

I love the area. Some people think I am crazy for liking 90 inches of rain a year, but I loved to walk in it. I love the trees, I love the water, I love the mountains, I just love it. On the west side of the canal I lived in the ultimate sweet spot. The Sea at my front door and the Olympic Mountains out my back. A 10-15 minute drive and I would be at either.

If you like seclusion this area is great. Beach property is very expensive but just going back a little bit, it is relatively cheap, which you already know. East side is so much less developed than the west, if you are looking for seclusion, you might just find it on the east side of the canal. A lot of property are long rectangles to the canal and people will build the house right on the canal. I do not know what to tell you about that, but I think you will love the area.

Growing stuff. I think most people are convinced that you need to clear ground and force the ground to do annuals. I would say in areas higher than 70 in of rain, the soils will be more fungally dominated (a soil evolution thing). It might be better for trees and other items. Food if you can get it like mushrooms (truffle, Shantrell, chaga) and many other things from the natural forest. Actually, you may want to keep more trees on your property than you remove. Also, you have the sea in front of you with oysters, shrimp, crab and stuff. It is reasonably safe to eat, I think. You could also grow stuff that is not food but valuable, even artful.

Anyway. I hope that is a good introduction to my "homeland". I think you will love it there.

Edit: I am sorry, I was going to address the "art studio" element that you talked about. There is no good way to say this but ... Western Washington is more artsy and liberal than the East Side. East is conservative pragmatist wheat farmers. When we lived in Hoodsport, my Dad had many clients that saw him for some alternative medicine stuff (reflexology, Shiatsu, Acupressure and stuff). He move to Eastern Washington (Tri-cities) and could not get very many clients. In other words, I think you will probably find more people to buy your art work on the West side than the East side. I know, you are doing the internet thing, but if you do any shows locally, you will probably get more sales there (West Side)

http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/hoodcanal/data/HC.pdf
http://www.hunter-farms.com/
http://hoodcanalenvironmentalcouncil.org/uploads/2009SpringNewsletter.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1iv37Yn8bg

Carol Ochs:

Welcome!!! I grew up in Hoodsport, about 25 miles (as the crow flies) southwest of Seabeck. Paul Gauchi lives about the same distance to the northwest in Squeim. Interesting differences, Hoodsport about 90 in of rain a year, Seabeck about 52 and Squeim 20 for a span of about 50 miles. We can thank the Olympic mountains for that.

I love the Hoodsport/Hood Canal area and have been all over the place on the west shore. Growing up we shrimped, crabed, fished and even swam in the Hood Canal. Now it is different, especially in the south part of the Hood Canal (Seabeck is basically in the north).

In 2008 there was a massive fish kill (well everything kill) in the Canal. This was not a red tide (natural) this was man made. What happened? Dissolved Oxygen. Not enough of it for the sea life. It got so bad in 2008, that animals that are usually 100 ft deep where in 3 feet of water just to breath. And at the deeper parts, dead zones. This is mostly caused by too much nutrient entering the canal and stuff eating it (look up Hypoxia), and is a big problem for many rivers entering the ocean.

So ... this caused a lot of finger pointing (who did this?). Many people say it was the people living on the canal not having adequate septic systems. Many pointed to some of the fishing practices of the (Skokomish) Indian Tribes on the canal. Others also pointed to the logging activities. And a bunch talked about the chemicals used in farming. No group willing to take responsibility, but all copable in some way. Then people called for studies and education and said that may help.

In Belfair, they installed a city sewer system which helped. On the Skokomish river, they unblocked some dams and levies and now all the people who farm in the skok valley are flooded and do not grow crops anymore. The septic systems are more expensive now on the south end of the canal but I am not sure about Seabeck.

If you go there, I would look to see where the water table is. If it is only a few feet down (say living on Stavis Creek) check carefully about what kind of septic system would be appropriate. I saw someone put one into my old neighborhood for about $30,000.

However, I love this area of Washington (it is my home), even though I live on the East side of Washington, this will always be my home.

Follow the following links for more information.

http://www.visitkitsap.com/seabeck
http://www.hoodcanalenvironmentalcouncil.org/info.php
http://nwtreatytribes.org/septic-systems-linked-to-hood-canal-fish-kills/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/lack-of-oxygen-killing-marine-life-in-hood-canal-waters/

Cancer is scary, especially for children. It is great you have each other to provide support to each other.

I am going to say something that most people do not want to say (on this forum). To be as safe as possible, you should stay with your current regiment with the doctors that know you. The intentional communities will still be there after the last treatment. Work the jobs you work and in your spare time learn about intentional communities.

This forum is full of smart, loving, caring people that do want to help. Many will bend over backwards to get you the help you need.

Therefore, I volunteer to be one that does (having gone through some of the same things you have gone through).

This forum is full of advice on how to do things and eat things to prevent cancer from entering your body, I have learned much here. It is also about conservation of energy and leaving a very small and simple footprint. There may even be some success in removing certain cancers that develop in the body. However, when it is your life on the line, sometimes that advice goes out the window in favor of current medicine (which I very much identify with).

Moving is a big step and moving to an intentional community is even bigger of a step and doing it while on chemo is even bigger. I would study for now, study homesteading here. Study gardens with One yard revolution or with Paul Gauchi in Back to Eden (the movie). Study Fungus. Study Invisable Structures. Study regenertive farming with Joel Salatin.. Study Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands by Brad Lancaster. Just keep learning and studying.

For people with families that are homesteading or farming I have two favorite families of 6. Check out Mylittlehomestead , they have all kinds of videos and adventures on their homestead. I would also look at Justin Rhodes family channel on Youtube. Justin's family is younger than the family of mylittlehomestead. All rich in information about homesteading and raising children.

Now for Intentional communities. If I remember correctly, you said you are in the Houston, TX area. I did a little looking around and it seems there are a few intentional communities in Texas. The closest thing I found is the Huston Access to Urban Sustainability Project. I found that on the Fellowship for Intentional Community Website.

I do not do any of the homesteading stuff but I will try to help anyway I can. Post or PM if you have any other questions.

edit: I forgot about immune compromised stuff. So ... the way I understand it, raw milk should not be on the menu until later. I guess you are to cook everything (even lunch meat). You could double wash your veggies and eat them raw, but most would just cook those too. Doctors like to say things interfere with the medications you will be taking. Some of the interference is just precaution talking but some is real interference. Say for example, you had pills containing Chaga, Turkey Tail and Reshe mushrooms (good for immune system). Doctors would not allow those pills but would probably allow a soup that contains those mushrooms. It is difficult to know what to eat. I would say, at the very least, eat certified organic (and cook it), and at best, permaculture food (and still cook it for the next year). I would also say, do not pee on the compost pile or use a composting toilet. The medications could be transferred into those things.

Mershka Calico;

Hello and welcome. Since you are in Northeast Oregon and I am in Southeast Washington, we are close to each other. Yea, it is a challenge being in such a dry hot area. I am jealous that you have a creek running through your property.

Tyler Ludens stated in your post that your creek restoration project is similar to his own. Well, Tyler Ludens is the author of a couple of popular strings on this forum. One is Creek Repair- Brush damns. There is a lot of things going on in that comment string.

Likewise, he authored the string Creek Repair - Rock Dams.. Both are good strings on this forum to look at.

Personally, I learned a bunch reading Brad Lancasters book Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and beyond Vol 1 and 2.

Reading your post, I could not help remember reading about 1-rock dams and check dams. Each designed to prevent sediment from floating down stream. They also help slow water and sink it into your property. I also thought about gabions.

In Brad's book, he talks about setting priorities. To "plant" the water around your property, first, so that it takes a while to leave. With that, he talks about starting this "planting" process on the highest point of the land. Then go down hill from there.

I would love to hear more about what you are planting in this climate. So, can I ask you provide some pics or vids of your progress around here? I would love to see it.

So ... In yesterdays vlog, "Guineas on the Roof", he talks about this live stream (webinar) that is coming up on Sunday.

He, gives a few hints on what is going to be on the webinar. What a sneaky guy. He points to this or that and says, "I will be talkng about a thing on the webinar and that thing is related to it."

For instance, he says, "there are X ways to keep predators away from your flock (posse)", then he points to his goose (Mr. Trump), "that is a reason why he is here." What could that possibly be? Well, in one of his vlogs about 3 weeks ago, he went out to his "chickshaw" (where he keeps some chickens at night and it is like a rickshaw) in the middle of the night. The chickens in the pen were calm, but old Mr. Trump was hissing up a storm ... protecting ... sneaky, huh? Shhhhh, you did not here that from me, OK?

In his vlog today, he did mention the extra video you can see about "mixing the feed" for your birds. He even showed a little taste of it on the vlog (just a tease really). Just go sign up and see the whole thing, K?

This guy (and his family) are awesome.

If you are unfamiliar with Justin Rhodes, he has a daily vlog that he posts to Youtube. The video posts are about 10 minutes each and they are interesting and fun. You can find his channel on Youtube by typing in Justin Rhodes on the search bar, he is the first one to come up (or follow the link in this sentence). It isn't all about raising chickens, they have a massive garden, cows and children ("chidlers") that they are also raising. I watch every day.

As for birds, you can see his adventures raising several breeds of chicken, Guinea, duck and goose (Mr. Trump) and just recently added, turkey.

He has also done some free Youtube streams (mentioned in the post above). I just signed up for this one. In the process of signing up they show an extra free 7 minute video about "mixing the feed" for your birds. It is awesome, and at the end of the video, you see his youngest of 4 children (Mr. Brown).

edit: a bit of a translation for those who follow the link above to sign up. He has several colloquialisms for things so here are some of them. "The beautiful one" is what he calls his wife. He calls chickens "dinos" .

Hi, Yea, I went and registered. I don't think they want any of us to provide a solution. I read the "submission" rules and there is a list of technologies they want and what they do not want.

Here is that:

The Tulane Nitrogen Reduction Challenge is seeking innovative in-field solutions that will reduce crop fertilizers and runoff, with the goal of combating hypoxia and global “Dead Zones”.
Some examples of in-field solutions could include, but are not limited to:
• Cloud based models
• Decision support systems
• Database management systems
• In-field sensor technologies
• Experimental application strategies
• Fertilizer stabilizers
• Alternative fertilizer products
• Novel fertilizers

In-field solutions should not include:
• Biological systems including cover crops
• Irrigation best management practices (BMPs)
• Edge-of-field BMPs

The first bullet on the "not include" is "biological systems". WTF? Do they not want a solution?

They also state in the premise of the prize that they buy into the idea that yield is only about "bushel per acre" and the "feed the world" fallacy. Very common for people to ask for innovators an bind the problem with fallacy and limit the scope (just farming).

It almost seems like, Tulane has placed a bounty on OUR (permies) heads.

The top 2 "Innovators" will have a test plantation in Louisiana for testing of the new technology for a year. The winner will get the prize.

Anyway, I am registered, I will monitor the situation. Who knows, I might be able to come up with something that satisfies their criteria and then I could win the million. Then, when I have the attention of the farming community of the Mississippi, I would publicly denounce the technology I created and spend the $1 million trying to get the farmers to implement a "biological system including cover crops".

Edit: There are some very smart people on this forum and I would be glad to entertain any ideas you all have as well. Please, PM me with subject line "1 million" or post on this string. The help would be appreciated.

You know, I have been staring at those two pictures for the last hour. After I read the comments, I just stared, while uttering the mantra, "the problem is the solution" over and over in my head.

Wow, a picture is worth 1,000 words.

But first, a comment on how to prepare.... Read all city, county and state ordinances regarding the property and any HOA kinda things. Understand what they truly mean. For example, I had a neighbor tell me I had to "spray with death spray" my fruit trees. I looked at the ordinance it states, "you must manage the pests" that can come to the tree. I thought, OK, I will plant garlic, create habitat for bats and dragonflies, make sure the soil is healthier, sticky traps. If anyone asks me, I am "managing the pests". If the officer is unfamiliar with this form of pest management, I would invite them to find the pests and view the research I found.

Recognize their beauty and resources ... No one likes to talk about them-self more than your (figurative) neigbor. You may consider complimenting them on how green their lawn is (OK, maybe not). However, I love those trees. Maybe you do too? Maybe it would soften their heart to talk about them. Be jealous in front of them for the tremendous resources they have every fall. If they are "smart" enough to chem their yard, they should be "smart" enough to throw that resource away. You could encourage them to create some kind of life on their side of the fence (all along the fence) that utilizes the resource they would normally throw away. Or you could say something like, "with your permission, I could use this resource on my side (along the fence) to benefit us both." You can do a similar thing with their tree branches of both their coniferous and deciduous trees. This way the neigbor can benefit from the resource that they provided. That will give them "skin in the game". Make the benefit wide so that the spill of the "chem" onto your yard does not kill all of the benefit. Try to have your neighbors realize that part of the benefit was killed by their own application of chem.. Constructing the solution this way, they will keep tabs on that "benefit you planted". In other words, make them part of the solution.

What they hate... I am going to guess, that besides the music and dog issues, the neighbors do not like the dandelions growing in your yard. They probably think that is why they have dandelions growing in there yard (need to chem it). They may be holding it against you but not telling you. If they are cheming the yard chances are good they feel this way. Recently, I had a neigbor come onto my property applying chemical stuff to my dandelions. WTF? Not quite sure how to deal with the "spread of weeds" perception, but maybe you could let them know how you are "managing" them.

Bamboo is a root propagator and some use the word "invasive". It seems to me, if bamboo is used, the neigbor will eventually perceive that you are "invading" their space (I know, they are invading yours with the chem). Bamboo could be a mutual decision between you and your neigbor. This may give you the barrier you seek, but will not necessarily improve relations.

So what do you most want to do? That is the $64,000 question.

edit: I would use the left over manure from your chicken house (you know the ones the neighbors had you remove), to apply to the "benefit along the fence" and make sure the neighbors know you did that (eventually).

Thank you all for the discussion.

What I particularly liked is Emilie McVey participation in this topic. If 1 person can look or re-look at rocket-mass stoves, I feel all the analysis is worth it.

So, let's address the other issues.

$200, A barrier to investigation:
In chapter 3 of this discussion, I talked about The test method costing $200 not to have a test performed. I have spent and charged a lot of money over the years for tests, however, the documentation that tells you how to perform that test has always been free. Labs and stove manufacturers might buy this test. I was not going to spend $200 for my curiosity and this post. Besides, I had enough evidence for free.

Accuracy of the analysis:
There are about as many variables here as there are homes to heat, I recognized that from the start and I am used to making more accurate analysis for more controlled conditions than what is presented in the subject of "Efficiency of wood heating systems". However, I approached it in the same way I mostly do. In the end, all I had, was generalities and inaccuracy in measurement. However, certain parts of the analysis stood out to show that there is a difference between the systems. Focusing on analyzing the differences, I believe, was the most fruitful way to determine the differences in efficiency. I stand by my methods of trying to obtain the closest approximation to a comparison I could get. Could I have researched it more? Sure, you betcha (in the summary of chap. 6, I state people study this stuff for years). When I wrote chapter 6, I felt like most other "facts" unveiled would probably add in only a small way to the overall analysis.

When creating this string, I felt compelled to analyse the efficiency of the three systems (system efficiency). Then my obsessive nature took over and I decided to analyse the "entire" efficiency. That is to say, I took into consideration the costs in time, money, transport fuel and garbage of these systems from cradle to grave (or even cradle again).

My measuring sticks:
I noticed early on that BTU/lb was a weight measurement when eventually I would have to say something about a measurement of a volume (cord of wood). Thank you Matt Goto for providing those measurements in terms of million BTU per cord. However, I decided to use the measure the industry uses so that we talk about their standard. In the end, some of those considerations fell out. I also used 11,300 BTU/lb which may seem a bit "cheesed" up. The point I was making here is two fold, the 10,800 BTU/lb may be inaccurate at higher burn temperatures. In the "mass action law" they say the burn is dependent on temperature and I also realized some of the minor gasses would also burn at those higher temperatures (adding btu's). The number could be higher or lower, however, I could not find a reference to help me with this, so I took an educated guess. The temp of 1,300 to 1,500 came from another string on this forum, I can't find it now, but it is around here somewhere.

In the first post, I say something about excess air and it's effect on efficiency. I was not quite sure how to treat it for the chapter 6 summary so I left it out. But yes, excess air is a factor in efficiency. In a post on another string, someone talks about mixing gasses at high temperatures. I believe that is addressed here. My main point with that is that all gasses and solids will "see" that higher temperature for long enough (several half lives) to have a reasonably complete burn.

Masonry Stoves:
Should I have brought Russian, Swedish or some other masonry type stove into the discussion? Well, since these are custom like rocket mass heaters, I originally thought the "entire efficiency" calculation may take me some time, that I did not want to spend. The points raised are valid about them having similar "system efficiency". And any arguments about maintenance and "efficiency of gathering fuel" for the fire are similar to a rocket mass stove.

If we cull those points out of the discussion we are mostly left with the "birth" and "death" considerations of a masonry. Birth: Well, we are looking at a similar expense in refractory bricks and stuff, however, the $10,000 expense for the brick layer time and the environmental impact of the bricks and mortar used in the "mass" part are very different than a rocket stove's earthen approach. Likewise, people doing the bench tend to use linseed oil, where the brick and mortar may be painted with stuff. I do not know about the "bell" or "batch" systems. Death: I am not sure about longevity of the rocket mass stove verses the masonry stove. I am guessing the masonry can last a lot longer. But at death, where can all the stuff go? For a rocket mass stove, most of it is "earth" already, and can probably go back into the earth. Can the bricks and mortar? And what about the "bell" build and "batch" build of the rocket stove? Can someone who actually owns one, chime into this string and tell me? I am also not sure about the riser and barrel, how recyclable it is at the end of life.

In the end:
I realized early on, that going down this path, may have been a flight of fancy. However, it was a journey I was taking at the time. I did not find what I was looking for right away, in this forum, so I ... decided to create a post for me to think this through. I want to thank permise.com for their indulgence in allowing me to take this walk freely, on their medium. I also want to thank the readers of this post, you keep me honest and on-task. You guys are great!!!

I got to thinking a little bit more about your post, so, I decided to research the resources of San Diego and who does what and why.

Wow, nice city. You guys are near the ocean so it looks like you are the last defense for keeping water on the land before it goes to the sea. In general, the permaculture way is to try to manage water in a watershed starting at the highest part then working your way down. That works if the land is owned by 1 owner or if everyone agrees. It would be difficult to do that. So, I suggest a different multi-pronged approach.

Simple start. Create a logo and paste it everywhere. This logo should be as recognizable to the citizens of San Diego as the Nike. If you have a brick and mortar, put that symbol there. Make that property an example of what can be done (gutters, rain gardens, Cisterns, earthworks, grey water systems, etc). Make your partners (the plumbers, the gutter people, Good Neighbor gardens, the permaculture place and so on) also examples of your co-ordinated efforts. Then the homes of the employees. And a little sign of the logo in all those locations.

Master Free Resources: OK. You guys use a bunch of plastics and glue and stuff to have cisterns, gutters, piping and so on. If you do earthworks, you may also have machines to make bio-swales, gabions, rain gardens and filtration basins. However, besides the machines and plastic you also use organic matter as mulch, compost or just good top soil. I suggests having some property around the city to collect and process the free resources you can get.

Where are the free resources? All over the place. People throw it away. However, to make the biggest impact, I would see if there is a way to help (or follow) the city workers in this video. You could help them take the debris from a storm as it happens (giving the home owner the choice to keep it. What ever the resource, I suggest, you do not transport it very far (less than 2-3 miles). Meanwhile the logo can be seen on the truck working with the city.

White Knight:. The sites mentioned above are the ones that are flooding or damaged. Taking the debris away helps the city and they will be grateful. However, what will make them more grateful is showing them you can prevent the floods themselves by a little creative landscaping. If you can save the city the overtime paying these "flood patrols" by putting in passive systems, they will be more grateful. I submit this video and this video as evidence that when it rains there are floods in San Diego. What a waste of water (notice in the second video the "flood patrol" guys from the city).

If you create solutions in these places (through landscaping and earthworks and stuff), I would again, put a small sign with the logo there. Funding? Well, that is important. No one works for free. You could do this to build good will with the city and get the brand (your brand) more recognized if you want. However, since this is California's #1 problem, I may look into getting some grant money from the state, or the county, or even the city..

The main point is to find the places where you get the most flood reduction impact and the most visibility. To that end, I submit Figure 1. This is the intersection of MLK Jr and I 805. In this picture, there is also a cemetery (with lots of trees) some churches and schools. I suggest you find a way to "adopt" this intersection. Find ways to use the trees and landscape of the road to "eliminate" any flooding that might occur. 100's of thousands of people go through this intersection every year (many going to work). If that logo was on a few signs at this "adopted" intersection, people would see it on the drive, especially if there are slow downs. Trimming the trees (and chipping) could provide valuable ground cover for this area (so would some bio-swales). This would be the ultimate "demonstration" site for your stuff. Likewise, the cemetery will cull trees and sometimes trim them. You should get that resource. Bring them to the local churches and help them (at low or no cost) create water saving landscaping. All the while, the logo can be seen at the church and your name on the mouth of the preacher.

Other Places to be known: When people think your business is cool, they will tell their friends and even blog, vlog, and use other social media to let their friends know who you are, and how cool you are. I would follow the local links here to try to get your name, logo, blurb, etc into their literature. Kinda like how you are featured on the San Diego Sustainable Living ... web site.

https://www.sandiego.gov/water/conservation
http://www.watersmartsd.org/programs/sustainable-landscaping-classes
http://sdcgn.org/
https://www.facebook.com/WaterConservationGarden/
Of course there would be more, I am not sure I saw anything about H2OME on the "Good Neighbor Gardens" facebook page.
I submit Figure 2 as another google search I did.

Advertising: Besides the stuff mentioned above, I would create a radio and TV champain and put it on neither. Kinda. Be interviewed in a podcast or by a radio station. Put a video on youtube, with the intent to put it on the TV one day, if it happens it happens. Make the video short and the message clear. Participate in local forums. You might find something on Craigslist or Reddit to participate on that would be more local to San Diego (not international like premies.com). With all of this advertising show to everyone you are the expert and honest choice for them (and make that true!!!).

Legal: You probably have read the city ordinances on this stuff, but to make sure you are above board, I would read them about Storm Water and about grey water (look at the same url to find it).

I also suggest you look up some of the description as to what the Intersection of MLK Jr and I-805.

That is a brief look at your wonderful city. I hope this is helpful for your future endeavors in the city.

Hi Greg;
You know ... what put me over the edge of realizing earthworks and cisterns are a good thing is all the work that Brad Lancaster has done. I read both of his books and seen a ton of videos he made. The reason why I did that, mostly, is because I saw one of his videos early on. This video is about 8.5 minutes and is on youtube so anyone can see it. I suggest, anyone interested in your systems should see this first.

The link to it is here if you want to go to YouTube.

and if you want to see it now:



He also shows in other videos, how he harvests the grey water from his laundry to water his trees and grey water from other sources.

You are doing great work. Do not get discouraged and I hope this helps.

Hi all;

about a week ago I read the comment stream Paul Wheaton is Impossible to work with. In it, arguments were presented about the efficiency of a "rocket" - "mass" wood burning system of heating.

So I created a post Why Rocket Stoves are so efficient. That was not the original title but since someone (moderator?) gave it that name, I felt compelled to explore the entire subject more completely. I had no idea it would become the behemoth (massive word wall) that it became. I kinda made it a 6 chapter post. First chapter being the original post and the 6th chapter being a summary. And everywhere in-between it is full of "sciencey" and "mathy" stuff (if you like that sort of thing).

I just finished the 6th chapter and realized, most people will never read the conclusions of the study (because it is such a word wall). So In the name of efficiency I am offering this post so people do not have to read a bunch of stuff to get the salient points.

This post contains the sections "Executive Summary" and "The Numbers" from chapter 6 of that comment stream. Feel free to go over to the original post to see all the support to this post.

Executive Summary:
The main topic of this discussion is "efficiency" and the perception of it for heating systems. I believe, with my limited research skills, enough anecdotal data and scientific research exists to "prove" or at least empirically define what efficiency actually means in this case and what people have mistakenly think it means.

"Design efficiency" is defined as the efficiency of the wood burning device to turn the chemical energy in the wood fuel into heat energy. "Transport Efficiency" is defined as the ability of the wood burning device to transport the heat generated in the device, to the room which it is heating. "System Efficiency" is the total of or combination (product) of the two other efficiencies (SE = DE X TE). In my estimation, wood burning manufacturers specify the "design efficiency" and people perceive that at the "system efficiency". This causes large confusion and "heated" debates (pun intended) based on misinformation (or incomplete information).

While that may be the case, the estimates of efficiency may also be flawed by the testing instrumentation or procedures causing major inaccuracies (uncertainties). Also, "design" efficiency is usually compared to what theoretical limit of the design, not the theoretical limit of the energy stored in the wood fuel. Likewise, most people embroiled in this type of argument fail to analyse the wood fuel and waste of the wood burning device and ignore this portion of the efficiency calculation. This wood fuel does not magically appear next to the wood burning device and the ash/waste does not magically disappear from the device.

My limited knowledge of thermodynamics and the barriers the wood device industry places on transparency have hindered some of these effort but I feel I have made a reasonable effort for the time constraint (do not want to do more) and limited resources (I have never even touched a rocket stove). I am reasonably assured, without further investigation, that a "rocket" - "mass" stove (compare to wood or pellet) IS the most efficient heating alternative of the three. That is, from the standpoint of conversion of chemical energy into heat energy filling a room. Likewise, it is my opinion that it also is the most efficient from a fuel gathering and waste minimization perspective in the parameters of labor, transport fuel, garbage created and money spent. While I did not do a complete analysis, I believe the initial creation and end of life environmental considerations also point to the "rocket" - "mass" stove being the most advantageous.

The Numbers:
I compared the three systems and gave a rank for many factors for the "wood stove", the "pellet stove" and the "rocket-mass stove". I submit Figure 1 as a table of that ranking. Likewise, I tried to come up with estimate of actual numbers corresponding to the issues raised in the Executive Summary. I submit Figure 2 as a table of those number. I would like to point out, these are best efforts numbers based on the investigations of the previous chapters. In the end, these are just (educated) guesses. I assume in the first line of "design" efficiency the numbers are compared to 8,600 BTU/lb for the wood fuel.

Notice, I do give a "system efficiency" estimate for the three. I would like someone else to provide some rigger into verifying some of these estimates. Since these are guesses, I do not want people to state the number to others as if they were gospel. If there is at least a little consensus with the people that work with the stuff, that would be good.

Thank you for your attention.

Chapter 6: Final Summary

We are almost there. Bear in mind, this is a simple literature search. People with fancy letters next to their name study fire/combustion/heat dynamics for years, I started last week. I could be wrong on some or all of this stuff.

I wish I had a lab filled with highly accurate instruments, rocket stoves, pellet stoves and a suite of high power thermodynamic and mathematical software.

So, here goes:

Executive Summary:
The main topic of this discussion is "efficiency" and the perception of it for heating systems. I believe, with my limited research skills, enough anecdotal data and scientific research exists to "prove" or at least empirically define what efficiency actually means in this case and what people have mistakenly think it means.

"Design efficiency" is defined as the efficiency of the wood burning device to turn the chemical energy in the wood fuel into heat energy. "Transport Efficiency" is defined as the ability of the wood burning device to transport the heat generated in the device, to the room which it is heating instead of out the exhaust. "System Efficiency" is the total of or combination (product) of the two other efficiencies (SE = DE X TE). In my estimation, wood burning manufacturers specify the "design efficiency" and people perceive that at the "system efficiency". This causes large confusion and "heated" debates (pun intended) based on misinformation (or incomplete information).

While that may be the case, the estimates of efficiency may also be flawed by the testing instrumentation or procedures causing major inaccuracies (uncertainties). Also, "design" efficiency is usually compared to what theoretical limit of the design, not the theoretical limit of the energy stored in the wood fuel. Likewise, most people embroiled in this type of argument fail to analyse the wood fuel and waste of the wood burning device and ignore this portion of the efficiency calculation. This wood fuel does not magically appear next to the wood burning device and the ash/waste does not magically disappear from the device.

My limited knowledge of thermodynamics and the barriers the wood device industry places on transparency have hindered some of these effort but I feel I have made a reasonable effort for the time constraint (do not want to do more) and limited resources (I have never even touched a rocket stove). I am reasonably assured, without further investigation, that a "rocket" - "mass" stove (compare to wood or pellet) IS the most efficient heating alternative of the three. That is, from the standpoint of conversion of chemical energy into heat energy filling a room. Likewise, it is my opinion that it also is the most efficient from a fuel gathering and waste minimization perspective in the parameters of labor, transport fuel, garbage created and money spent. While I did not do a complete analysis, I believe the initial creation and end of life environmental considerations also point to the "rocket" - "mass" stove being the most advantageous.

The Numbers:
I compared the three systems and gave a rank for many factors for the "wood stove", the "pellet stove" and the "rocket-mass stove". I submit Figure 1 as a table of that ranking. Likewise, I tried to come up with estimate of actual numbers corresponding to the issues raised in the Executive Summary. I submit Figure 2 as a table of those number. I would like to point out, these are best efforts numbers based on the investigations of the previous chapters. In the end, these are just (educated) guesses. I assume in the first line of "design" efficiency the numbers are compared to 8,600 BTU/lb for the wood fuel.

Notice, I do give a "system efficiency" estimate for the three. I would like someone else to provide some rigger into verifying some of these estimates. Since these are guesses, I do not want people to state the number to others as if they were gospel. If there is at least a little consensus with the people that work with the stuff, that would be good.

What I did not do?
Well, I did not feel like including estimate of energy release for extra constituents (flue gasses) that are burnt in the "rocket" stove that are not burned in the wood or pellet stove. I did not provide an estimate of uncertainty (precision, accuracy) in the values in the table, which I would normally do but I am lazy. Look both ways before crossing; in other words, I did not try to approach every consideration from as many angles as possible (like include a estimate of "excess air").

I also did not discuss certification or ascetics. Many people may not be scientists but they look for scientific approval and safety in the products they buy. Getting UL or some other type of thing is a process that mass produced wood burning systems went through. Even if it was very inaccurate, they were pedigreed in some way. "Mason" type stoves usually are custom made and in general would not get a certification (that seal of approval from "science"). Ascetics is way out of the scope of this conversation, however, I believe that sometimes it is the basis for people to do the science argument. They may think the stove is ugly, but instead of saying that, they argue about certification or efficiency or both.

What I would like to see:
My eyes, nose, mouth and hands are instruments to detect things like temperature, particulate levels, and other stuff. I would like to see more accurate measurements of "rocket - mass" stoves with some actual scientific instruments. Temperature at bends, temperature in riser, temperature of air entering, temperature of air leaving and temperature everywhere else. Air flow everywhere. Measurement of the particulate levels and gasses. The instruments exist to do this. I would like to resolve the questions people brought up (products burn in the riser or in the donut of disturbance) during this write up.

I would also like to see the RMS come out of the DYI mode and actually become a product people would have the patients to install (2 hours instead of 2 days).

Science: Should never be intimidating to anyone. In many ways, it is like permaculture in that you "observe" and then you do some other stuff (OK a bit thin). However, NO ONE SHOULD EVER TRY TO INTIMIDATE YOU WITH SCIENCE, the principles of science are there to help explain (the most trivial things about) the world around you and are free to all (third ethic?). Physics helps you understand the energy around you and allow you to harvest and store it (2nd principle?).

Do you need hard science?
In this debate? Not really. Paul says, even anecdotal evidence is science. I agree. Even though I went through this week of thermodynamic hell, most people do not need that. You can show them that people are burning less, working less, spending less. Most people who say they want a scientific explanation would not know how to scientifically argue themselves. However, if they insist, you could point them to this post and have them spend a few hours studying.

A story:
I love my flat screen TV. When I put the flatscreen TV next to my old school TV (CRT) I could see the flatscreen has amazing color fidelity compared to my current TV. I also realized, the resolution made things look so much more like I was actually there. There were all kinds of plug-ins in the back (HDMI, VGA, and much more) that I did not have on my old TV. I could imagine that some of my shows, movies and gaming would be a completely new experience even in reruns. I saw the "pretty" and I wanted it now!!! But wait, I do not know the science behind it. I asked the sales person to provide a more scientific explanation to me before I buy. The resolution, HDMI, color balance explanations from the sales person were not very technical. That could have prevented me from buying the TV, and then I realized, I love the "pretty" TV. I want it now!! I guess I can figure some stuff out later. I like the pretty!

OK that sounds shallow, but from my standpoint, I do not need to know how everything works before I buy it. I realize and appreciate the science that went into it, but that does not always mean I have to master it. (So, don't hate, K?)

If you are reading this sentence, you have come to the end of the ride. I thank you for taking this journey with me. I would not wish this on my worst enemy but I couldn't recommend it enough to my best friend. If you are reading this, I hope to count you as a friend as well. Thank you for your indulgence.

http://energy.gov/energysaver/wood-and-pellet-heating
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/discussion_paper_-_process_for_dev_imp_cwtm_030916.pdf

Erin Blegen:

Hi, and welcome. I know, there may be plenty of threads that talk about wood chips as a mulch. That's because wood chips are a great mulch.

However, it is more about putting on a cover, water retention and feeding the soil food web. Any mulch (saw dust, wood chips, bark, dead plants, compost and even rocks) will help with one or more of these goals (usually all three).

If the mulch is organic it can come in two flavors, kinda. It can be bacteria dominated or fungal dominated. Both of those things (bacteria and fungi) are important to maintain a healthy soil food web. Usually the "dominance" is a result of where the mulch comes from. Bacteria dominated comes from green stuff, like decayed leaves, composted manure, table scraps. Fungi dominated comes from brown stuff, like wood shavings, bark, paper and other woody stuff.

Most people assume fungi dominated for wood chips, but really it is both, that is why everyone likes it. It is free, light, bacterial and fungi components (leaves and wood and bark), and if composted a little, fast acting.

I assume the saw dust and bark and stuff you get will be fungal dominated.

Who likes what? Well, in general, any mulch will work for any plant, but in general trees like fungal dominated and annual plants like bacteria (from what I have read and observations on Paul Gauchi's farm). You wrote you are putting this around a maple. I believe most would agree that in great.

I have been watching every day for the last 3-4 weeks. That family is awesome. He runs a farm, takes care of 4 children (Thing 1 and Thing 2, Miss Messy Hair and Mr. Brown) and a wife (the Beautiful One). He is so busy grazing his cows and raising chickens (dino's). And on top of all that, each day he films what happens, and does a ton of editing. That is a huge amount of editing each day!

I am a big fan.

Chapter 5

The Fuel: OK, this may not be considered part of the scope of the discussion but I feel compelled to mention it. The fuel does not magically appear next to the stove. It takes energy, time and in some cases garbage to put that fuel next to the stove. In this discussion of efficiency, should this argument be placed?

Suppose I break a twig off a tree outside my door and put it into the "wood heater" (here I mean, rocket stove, wood stove or pellet stove), that would be a different expenditure in energy, time and garbage than shipping the fuel a few hundred miles in containers that will be garbage.

Cord wood or mill ends: Free is relative. You still need a chainsaw to cut it (fuel and time), an axe (or wood splitter) to split it (time and/or energy) . Stacking and bring into the house. Cutting a cord of wood and putting into a pick-up may take an hour and cost about 1 quart of fuel in the saw. I will assume in a pick-up truck you will expend 50 ton miles per gal. ( pick-up to carry 1 ton of stuff 50 miles on a gallon of fuel). So say the wood is 10 miles away and an average cord of season wood is 2 tons, that is 0.4 gallons of fuel to transport 1 cord (and the same to get there). Now, you need to split and stack the wood. I would estimate 1.5 hours for normal wood stove splitting (per cord) but 2.5 hours for splitting a cord of rocket stove wood. That may seem like an argument against rocket stoves. However, most people who use rocket stoves see the fuel resources all around them (it does not have to be cord wood, it could be junk mail). So for each cord you may have to invest 3 to 4 hours and a gallon or more of fuel just to get the wood pile next to the wood heater. Good seasoned cord wood has a fuel moisture near 20%.

Pellets: Yea, it costs money to buy bags of these things. It saves the user a lot of time. just drive to the store, buy the bags, stack the bags at home, put the pellets in the hopper. It is like $5.00 a 40 lb bag here in the tri-cities. So, it is like $250 per ton of pellets. Driving to the store and time may be 1 hour and 2 gallons of fuel per ton. However, that is not the true cost. The factory is more than 200 miles from here. This factory uses wood shavings (from a mill) and spends energy making the pellets (I do not know how much). These pellets go into plastic 40 lb page (about 0.1 lbs each). They are stacked on a pallet in 1 ton increment and wrapped in shrink wrap for the trip. They next get a plastic cover over the top and put on a semi. So for me to buy 1 ton of pellets it consumes (at a minimum) 4 gallons of fuel, 6 "man hours" and $250 to me. It would also create about 10 lbs of plastic garbage (not very recyclable). Pellets have a moisture content between 5% and 10%.

Junk mail and twigs: yea that is the stuff, it comes to your house or in your yard for free. You can even take the junk mail and twigs from your neighbors. A rocket stove will achieve a high temperature and I speculate it could break down any added "nastiness" of the junk mail.

The Junk: The report in the previous post measured the "byproducts of burning" that go up the exhaust. But that is not part of the efficiency argument and is a great argument for another time.

An argument for (or against) pellet stoves: A pellet stove works by feeding in small amounts of pellets into a burning area augured from a bin of pellets. A fan (roughly 75 watt on low) pushes air though the burn area and up the chimney. There is a separate channel that air enters the stove and is pushed by the burn area (heating the air but not picking up smoke and particulates or fumes) which may be another 75 watt. There is a controller that manages all of these processes (including a start up protocol). The pellet stove can not work without the input of electricity and the fuel can only be in the form of a pellet.

While the stove makes up (somewhat) for not having a mass by forcing air around the chamber, the exhaust pipe is still hot (maybe 300F). This is called avection (force air convention). The burning temperate is a little higher due to the other forced air (through the burn chamber). So, the design efficiency may be higher than a wood stove it still does not reach the internal temperature of a rocket stove (so probably a little less). My estimate, 3% more than a wood stove for the burn. The fuel moisture being about half (10%) of regular cord wood can give an extra bit of efficiency. The transport efficiency may be much higher than a wood stove but the exhaust is still hotter than the exaust of a "mass". However, we must add in a per pound measure of BTU's per lb of pellets to operate the fans and auger. Assuming you will use 170 watt per hour to operate the fans and auger that is 580 BTU's per hour. That is using the stove on low flow, so if the rate is 2.5 lbs per hour, that means it is roughly 230 BTU/lb of electricity used to operate a pellet stove.

So what does all that mean. You get better design efficiency and transport efficiency in a pellet stove then a wood stove, however, from the temp of the exhaust and the temp of the burn area, it will not be as efficient as a "rocket" - "mass" stove. The efficiencies gained (over a wood stove) by the overall design are also augmented by the use of electricity to make it work.

Stay tuned for Chapter 6. Final summary.

http://cta.ornl.gov/vtmarketreport/pdf/chapter3_heavy_trucks.pdf
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/Watt_to_BTU.htm

Chapter 3

Hi, everyone. Yea, we can talk about the riser/donut and completeness of burn between the two some time later, let's get on with the subject

Let's try to get some of more holes filled in.

I did some research and when Paul was arguing with supergirl the industry was performing a standard test on wood stoves called CSA B415.1-00. It has changed a little now (2015 standards are different) but this method of testing is worth mentioning. By the way, the test method is about $200, talk about a barrier to investigation. I found a test performed in 2009 on a batch of 16 wood stoves and that can be found in the link below. There was argument in the late 80's about the accuracy of the test, but it was better than anything they had so they went with it.

Test conditions: The goal is to burn a fire for a time and measure different parameters. Fuel-Kilm dried wood, as low on water content as they could possibly get. Exhaust measurement - particulate and flue gas levels were measured. Wood was burned steady at a low temperature (LT) and a high temperature (hT). They measured the temperature at two points in the exhaust, and did some other things.

Looking at the test ...

I agree. The tests sucks. It is highly inaccurate. I can judge that by the high variation in the measurements and most all measurements had high variance and variability. If I did this in a lab, my bosses would tell me "you suck!" and to construct a better test, immediately. On top of that, even if my bosses did not do that, I would quit before allowing my name to be on the report. But it is the "best" we could come up with in 1989 (did we really suck that much in the 80's?).

The test were usually about 7 hours. The low temp tests averaged at 725 F and the high temp tests averaged 830 F at 1 foot high inside the chimeny.

Other stuff (residues): Remember I stated there are things, other than sugar, burning. Some of those things can be found in Figure 1 labeled exhaust constituents. That is a partial table (there are many other substances tested for) of the things they found in the exhaust. As you can see the variance is quite high in those numbers. However, the table suggests two things. 1) the higher the temperature, the more completeness of the burn of these other things. 2) It is hard to measure consistently. I submit Figure 2 as a table of ignition temperatures of different compound shown in the table in figure 1. It is my assumption that a lot of the residues from a burn in a normal wood stove do not see the temperatures required to ignite them. However, they might in an environment of a little higher temperature.

Fuel moisture: I said Kiln dry wood was used in the test, but that is a standard, this was cord wood, however, measurements reveled the average is about 17% moisture for the wood burned. A few websites recommenced less than 20% but most people would burn and get a reasonable fire at 23 to 25%. These web sites suggest stacking your wood for 1 entire year to achieve less than 20% (but no guarantees). I stated above, you generally get about 1% point change in efficiency for every 1% of water content in the wood. So for most folks (using a wood stove), the wood would automatically be 5% to 10% points different in efficiency over the fuel tested. A rocket stoves wood, in general, would have an advantage because of the higher surface area exposed to air. You may even get kiln dry levels.

Temperature I stated at the high temperature test (830 F at 1 foot) and a low temp test (724 F at 1 foot). I have seen some things about rocket stoves to get as hot a 1,800 F but in general maintain at 1,300 to 1,500 F (in the rocket). (Please, correct this).

That suggests to me that much of the "residues" did not see temperatures high enough to ignite (or they would not be detected in the exhaust). Looking at Figure 2, I would say that there is good probability for more burning in a rocket stove (if not all) than a wood stove. What does this add? Like I said, I would have to find out how much of this stuff the wood would produce. However, in the tables it looks like these residues add about 20% to the calculation of Theoretical energy.

This temperature difference also helps with our "law of mass action" adjustment to the completeness of the burn and theoretical energy stored value. Now, I did say that it is complicated but we can take a quick look. This wood stove test had two temperatures (725fF and 830F) and the general difference between the two theoretical max energy calculation for the two was about 175 btu/lb. If the difference were linear ( a straight line) the new theoretical max becomes. 850 btu higher per pound. That is assuming linear. However, we may be able to just say about 500 BTU for a theoretical max energy of 11,300 BTU/lb. That is a difference of about 5%. Again we would need to add in the effect of the residues igniting.

Chapter 4

Transport efficiency This is the efficiency of getting the heat generated into the room being heated before it leaves the house in the form of exhaust. Now, I commented before on this. I do not want to get into it too much. There are 3 mechanisms for heat transfer, conduction, convection, and radiation.

For a wood stove there is little surface area devoted to these 3 forms of heat transfer. The "conduction" is the fire warming up the stove and part of the pipe. Since the stove is metal it is a good conductor of heat. Infrared radiation will "radiate" from all (very limited) surfaces of the stove and pipe. Convection will only generally occur above the stove, not the chimney.

For a rocket-mass stove: The "rocket" and the"mass" has a lot of surface area and a lot of volume (compared a wood stove). Therefore, there is a very high potential for storage and transport of the heat in to the room. On the "rocket" part, it is insulated until you get to the riser which is metal (a conductor of heat), that focuses more of the heat from the burn into the riser. In the "mass" part, the exaust pipe is in contact (conductive connection) with rocks and stuff (can be anything). Then, the "mass" has a "semi-conducting" shell (the outer part of the bench or bell) for slow heat release. This "mass" has a huge volume for storage of heat and the outer shell has a huge surface area to radiate and convect. And if you sit on it, conduct.

What I noticed in the report was, for the stove testing at 825F (in chimney) at 1 foot, it was 650F at 8 feet (in chimney). What that implies to me is the transport efficiency might be much lower than the 70% I stated in the first post. Subtracting room temperature (70 F) from both and dividing suggests only about 25% to 30% efficiency. Ok, there is something I am surely missing.

Multiplicity: When you look at the individual efficiencies (i.e. design and transport efficiency) in any "system", usually the efficiencies multiply (not add). So let's pretend you have a "design efficiency" of 60% and a "transport efficiency" of 50%. The "system efficiency" would be 30% (0.6 X 0.5 = 0.3).

At this point it is looking like heat transport is a bigger contributor to inefficiency than the inefficiency of the design. let us say we calculate the wood burning stove to be 80% efficiently. If the transfer efficiency is 25% , that would mean the "heating system" is only 20% efficient at actually heating the room. Wow, no way!! is it really as simple as that?

Summary in Chapter 6

http://heatkit.com/docs/ec_report-verification_of_emission_factors.pdf

Ya know ... I might just go for a grant to do the last bulleted item on that list of things on the "scope of work" figure above.

"How will they communicate the message to agriculture and nonagriculture about conversation and water use", That is pretty loose. That might be a recording of "a bunch of hippies smoking dope in the basement talking about how the world should be". But I jest.

How do you "communicate" with people? Really? I could write a 1 page thing about youtube, TV advertizing, starting a web site, an iphone app, a video game and the most effective thing of all. Get the biggest farmer in a region to bend to your will through intimidation, the rest of the farmers will follow. For the non-agriculture, I would dress the message up in something pretty. Something, millions would give their eye teeth to be part of, and be pretty themselves.

See the 6 things that are the goal of "A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution." in Figure 1.

Good Question Benny.

No-Till Cash/Cover crop rotation: Is a method large farms employ to maintain a healthy soil food web. Row crop farms use this and rotate the cash crop. That cash crop rotation may be a 3 or 4 year (3 or 4 crop type) rotation. Then between the cash crops a multi-species cover crop (that also may rotate). In all, those farms may grow 20 - 30 species of plants on their land. This helps keep a living root in the ground and creates good soil structure, water retention and armor for the soil that goes deep. This method requires 2 to 4 passes a year, seed/harvest/killroll on the property with equipment.

Permaculture Might have a few hundred species of plant, scrub, tree, mushroom on a single acre. I thought, by how you were talking you were going to have a multitude of species and that you would have crops year round (or at least most of the year). So even if a bug comes to an area with a specific type of plant it likes to eat, the next year it may not be able to find that plant. This also is a feature of companion planting, like planting garlic at the base of some trees, or a flower to confuse sense of smell (if you are into that sort of thing). It also seemed like you only wanted to harvest after the first year (only trips to harvest, not to plant). Nothing creates a perpetual harvest like a biodiversity, while some plants are dieing, some will be coming alive. As those die they feed the next gen of plants.

Who has been doing it for more than 5 years? Well on a smaller scale than 5 acres, I would say Eli and Val, and Alex Ojeda out of Jacksonville Florida. They have a few videos on youtube and they also have done some projects together that are also big. Here is one of Alex's tour of his property.

I hope that is helpful.

Hi all

I was looking through Grants.gov and saw a grant for research named
USDA-NIFA-AFRI-005822
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative: Water for Agriculture Challenge Area
Department of Agriculture

The announcement can be found here.

This a grant set of about $10 million but no individual grant can be given greater than $500,000. And a wide variety of entities can apply, including individuals (people like you and me). See Figure 1.

These moneys are for people (or universities, non-profits, etc) who want to study the health effects on humans/animals/plants using "non-traditional" water for the crops. It is coming from the people doing food safety, you know, part of that "feeding the world" myth people believe in. The non traditional water sources are recycled, brackish and desalinated water use in dry areas. I found a supporting document that kinda shows the scope of the work (Figure 2)

When I saw this announcement, the first person I thought of was Brad Lancaster who lives in a desert (Arizona). He wrote the Rainwater Harvesting books. I think he might get a few bucks to study the "grey water" coming out of his washing machine. Or a number of other people on this forum that farm that might be able to help with this study.

Some of these grants are a direct result of the report "A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution." 2009 by the National Research counsel. I read a little bit of it. I think it might be helpful, however, I could tell big ag has gotten their hand in this report perpetuating some of the "other myths" most of us do not believe in.

So, come on people! No one has a perspective on this topic as advanced as the people in this forum. Who knows, we may even author some real "science-based" reports that everyone keeps crying about.

The supporting document can be found here.

Yea, Me!

I find it so hard to find anyone close to me to talk to. However, even you appear to be at least a 2.5 hour drive. However, I do go to Seattle/Bothel once in a while kinda making me drive by you (I guess).

Purple Moose me if you are interested.

Hi,

I read some of this string and I think I may be able to assist. You have a very interesting approach.

I wrote about hot water heaters on my website in late 2012 (In the conservation>heat>hot water heater section). There is a lot of information about garbage, efficiency, money and return on investment (for water heaters). I even created 5 different calculators (just for water heating) for you to make calculations on your own (so you can see what is right for you). There is a lot of information there and you might spend an hour or two going through the information.

Let me take this time to summarize what you might find there for the type of system you want to have.

Interesting approach. Pre-heating the water with a very small tank. What I have found that with this kind of mixing problem, (my testing and confirmed in literature) when 70% of the water is removed quickly from the tank it will begin to loose temperature. That means in your set up, when 1.75 gallons is removed the water temperature will fall from that 110 you mentioned. At that point, your tank-less might engage.

Regulation: Each unit is separately regulated. You may have a little difficulty getting approval on a joint unit.

Electrical or Gas connections: A tank-less system requires a higher flux of electricity (or gas) than a normal tank system. By my calculations it is like turning 70 burners on on your stove at the same time. That is a lot of power all at once. You may need to run an extra line (electrical wiring or gas pipe) creating extra labor and garbage. I am not a big fan of how these tax the power grid when operating either.

Garbage: In general, switching your current system to another type of system will create more garbage. You will need to cut holes in sheet rock, add wiring or gas lines, upgrade your electrical panel and so on. That would be for any kind of switch in heat source (electric, solar, gas) and tank type (tank, tank-less).

Cost: At the time I wrote the stuff, the tank-less system was expensive. So was the contracting to tear out sheet rock, re-pipe, re-wire.

More: Yea, you will find a lot more there.

My suggestion: I have noticed it is common to plum for peak. "What would be the need if 2 people are taking a shower at the same time doing a hot load of laundry, with running the dishwasher?" Even if that were to happen at your house, it may only be 1% of the time. People do not have to operate under that assumption, they can do one thing at a time. So then it becomes, "How much hot water do I need for a single operation". That could be the 70% size mark of your hot water heater need. What happens is the size requirement of your tank shrinks. You get a tank, much smaller than 50 gallons. You might even realize that the tank-less, is folly in cost and garbage. Maybe just getting a hot water heater of 10 or 20 gallons (an RV) model might just do the trick.

What happens if you get a house full of visitors? Make the tank bigger. Yea, I said that. Well at least for showers you can make the tank bigger. Realize, a person will not take a shower hotter than what they are comfortable with. Usually it is slightly above body temperature (say 100 deg F). I say this in the web site. You say you keep the water at 110 deg F. If you were to change the temperature setting to 120 deg F, you have made the tank 20% bigger for showers. Setting the tank to 140 makes the tank about 50% to 60% bigger. (Same applies if you do dishes in the sink instead of a dishwasher). When the company leaves, you can dial the temperature back on your heater. One point about legonela. I an not 100% certain but It might be best to run the hot water heater at a higher temperature a couple weeks a year to reduce the threat of legonela.

So what do you get? There are small tanks, but I might suggest you get the most durable 15 gallon or 20 gallon tank and forget about pluming in a tank-less after the main tank. A tank-less is an expense that will be used so infrequently you will not see a return on your investment in 100 years. The smaller tank, on the other hand, will show savings from the moment you install. You should wait till the 50 gallon is dead. You might need to make a very slight adjustment on when you do things (shower, laundry, dishes) but both of you will be able to take a hot shower, wash a load of laundry and also do a load of dishes every day on a 15 gallon heater (try one of the calculators).

Edit: Oh yea, I forgot. You talked about a thermostat to control times to heat. I am guessing you would turn it on and off at different times of the day. Well, that is fine, however, may have a long time for a return on investment (decades), especially if you are controlling a very small water heater. I might just get a little higher R-value (insulation) and leave the unit on all the time.

Chapter 2

So, in the first post of this string I gave data and some "proof" of what I was talking about. However, there were some holes. Holes that I think Wheaton labs can fill in with some experimentation. Likewise, I will be doing my stuff, and sharing the experience with you. Sound fair?

I went to google and asked it if there were a more complete reference. It showed me this textbook "Combustion and Incineration Process: Applications ... ", By Walter R. Niessen. This book is huge and chalk full of sciencey/mathy goodness. Warning: If someone puts a bunch of stuff in a book that does not mean it is gospel. However, I will use it to try to better understand what scientists define as fire (heat transfer) behavior better.

Hole 1: Mass Action: The temperature Remember above I said that there was some law (Law of Mass Action). And things are calculated to burn 80% because wood stoves (and stuff) do not burn as hot as a rocket stove. All the previous references said, at a "given temperature" the mass action will be constant. I assumed that constant changes
with higher temperature. I found the formula they use to calculate this constant "K" and is shown in Figure 1 from page 39 of book. The relationship of temperature to the constant is inverse logarithmic, but a little more complicated than that.

Translation: It approaches 100% burn slowly as temperature is raised. If you double the (assumed) temperature, you can get a few more % points up from the 80%. My guess ... about 10% points at most (I think that is generous) (that is an increase in theoretical limit of 12.5%). This constant "K" will be different for different substances. Figure 2 (page 40 of book) shows a graph of "K" for a lot of different materials. I do not know what those materials are but I use that to illustrate it has been calculated or measured. And surprisingly, some values of K go up with temperature and some values of K go down.


Hole 2: Mass Action: The Time This book suggests that there is a "half life", if you will, for things to burn. That means, in general, the longer burnable stuff is in a hot area the more of the burnable stuff will burn (giving off heat). If I understand the rocket stove build, after the initial burn the products (gasses, particles) are accelerated into a chamber where it creates an eddy (a donut of disturbance). This donut is at the top of the system, trapping (light) burnable gasses into a kinda vortex than makes them stay in a heated area for more "half lives" than they would in a wood stove. In a wood stove, as soon as something is burnt, the products head immediately to the chimney. Let us do some simple math for a couple of seconds. If the burnable material is in the vortex for 1 half life (HL) 50% of that material will be burned. In for twice as long (2 X HL) 75% burnt, in for two times longer (4 x HL) 93.75% and so on. Now, I am guessing that the half life will be different for different material. I do not know what this half life time is and the book does not come out and say it yet. After the gasses have given up energy in the process (burned) they "float down" to the exhaust of the chamber and out into the serpentineing tube.

Hole 3: Mass Action: Turbulent Mixing Yea, this "donut of disturbance" violently mixes the gasses and the heat together. This is kinda like a feedback loop of mixing heat and gas. The draw of the stove starts the flow going, then, as the air is moving to the chamber, it turns a corner and goes up, accelerating the gas and stuff. When it gets to the top, it is a gas with heat energy and kinetic energy (energy of motion) wanting to continue up. It finds a barrier and gets deflected. This adds heat and pressure to the donut (a feed back). As the gasses (and other stuff) mix with the high heat, it burns more completely and loose energy. When the gas has lost enough energy, it gets off the donut and travels down the chamber to the exhaust. A wood stove, by comparison, will not have a "heat feed back" and as soon as the wood burns there is no real mixing, it just goes to the chimney.

What do Hole 2 and Hole 3 do to add to efficiency? Not quite sure. What we need is a measure of the "half life" of burning fraction. Then see what turbulent mixing does to that half life. I think it may be pretty complicated to find a new "half life" because the feed back may make create a less predictable formula than the normal half life formula. I say that because I suspect the half life was calculated with laminar (steady) flow.

Hole 4: Burn Products Photosynthesis produces one product in general. Sugar. Technically the formula is CO2 + H20 + sun light energy makes C6H12O6. That is the sugar molecule. That is the only thing in cellulose. So the calculation in the first post is to burn only sugar (C6H12O6). The article that calculation comes from also mentions there are other things like ammonia, methane, and a bunch of other things. These compounds contain a different amount of chemical energy than sugar. I will have to do more research on how much more heat they can contribute and how much they would in a rocket stove. In a wood stove, chances are, the temperature would not necessarily get high enough for the "other stuff" to burn.

It looks like I may have a little more reading and calculating to do. my best guess of what the differences are. I believe the physical max (80% of theoretical) can be changed for the rocket stove to maybe 90% of the theoretical. That is a change of 8,600 BTU to 9,700 BTU where the theoretical is 10,800 BTU. That 10,800 BTU is derived from burning a pound of sugar and should be changed to a theoretical value that represents all the stuff in the wood. Even if it makes the new theoretical value smaller... yea, I said that.

I will keep going on it. I hope you still want to join me for the ride?

thomas rubino;

First of all. Isn't that picture from the road that sluffed off here in Washington, on highway 12 or 2? Stevens pass or somewhere left of Yakima?

Thank you for the kind words. I guess I needed to write it down somewhere to try to explain it to myself. I picked here.

This post is inspired by two things. I was working on some of these calculations anyway and I recently read the Comment Stream Paul is Impossible to work with.

Paul talks about "Supergirl" fighting with him on the physics of a rocket stove. After I read all of that meaningless drivel, I came to this forum (Rocket Stoves) to see if anyone has done an analysis (or explanation) of why the rocket stove works so efficiently. Seeing none right off the bat I though I would take a stab at it.

Science - In Physics, we all learn that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes from one form to another. Most everything about Physics is that. Wood burning is a molecular chemical reaction (oxidation) which is exothermic (the byproduct is heat). So, the first thing we need to know is how much total chemical energy is stored in a pound of wood (this becomes our Maximum Theoretical heat energy). To get efficiency, we look to see how much energy we can get from burning the wood then measure how much heat we got from the wood, in the room we are trying to heat. Divide one by the other and we get % efficiency. In Physics, and the other sciences we compare Theoretical maximum to what is achieved. You would think everyone would calculate efficiency that way because it makes intuitive sense. Sound fair?

The best reference I could find states the "theoretical" energy stored in a pound of wood is 10,800 BTU (British Thermal Unit) (7150 for burning of Carbon and 3720 to burn the Hydrogen). That is based on the chemical make up of wood and varies only slightly between species. See Figure 1 and Figure 2.

What does the efficiency label on a wood stove or pellet stove mean? Is it a % of that 10,800BTU? Turns out, no it is not.

Theoretical Design efficiency (gross). The design of a heating system has a theoretical limit beyond which humans can generally not tread. In other words, because of design, you limit yourself. This usually deals with letting gasses pass to a flue and escape the heating system unburned. That generally brings in the initial "fudge" factor to 8,600 BTU as the theoretical limit (80% of the actual theoretical limit). People also bring in laws, the "law of mass action", but there is too much argument for me to think it totally applies here. Could the industry be comparing their efficiency number to this number? Well ... To look good you might want to find a smaller number to compare to.

"Gross" and "Net" efficiency. This deals with heating water. Water created by the burning of the wood. The chemical reaction insists that the fire has to use another 570 BTUs of energy to vaporize the water created. That gives a new fudge factor. I have seen that fudge factor between 0.91 to 0.93 for wood. So, our new number to measure against is 8,000 BTU. So, that is it, right? They use 8,000 BTU to get efficiency. Well ... we will call that good.

"Combustion" and "Transfer" efficiency, moisture content of wood and excess air. All have our honorable mention as to what creates inefficiencies to a stove. Combustion is a measure of what does not burn. Transfer is a measure of how much heat came into the room vs. how much went up the chimeny. As mentioned in the Gross vs net efficiency, when a fire has to deal with water it becomes less efficient (roughly 1% less efficient per 1% water content in the wood). If there is more air than needed where the wood is burning, the combustion is more efficient but it steals heat.

EPA default efficiency. Yea, that was used when Paul was debating Supergirl, since then, EPA kinda dropped it. The default efficiency was something you could put in the sales material of the stove, without actually showing the real test results. It is kinda an average efficiency of what that type of design of wood stove could get and can be highly inaccurate.

WTF does all this mean? The efficiency rating on a wood burning device could be highly deceptive. And transfer efficiency depends on how the system is placed in the home (nothing to do with the device).

Something rated at 60% efficient may actually be 44%. If it has a poor transfer efficiency (typically 70%) that number goes down to 31% (about half of original spec.). If you replaced that with a device that was nearly 100%, you could burn 1/3 the wood.


What if there was something different? Something that, by virtue of its design, could re-write all the assumptions made about wood burning heaters.

Enter the rocket-mass stove.

It works by having an initial chemical reaction (burning) of some wood. The byproduct heat, gasses and materials from that reaction naturally move (through natural air flow) to a chamber where heat accumulates to a high steady state temperature. The temperature of the chamber achieved is much higher than achieved in a typical fire place, wood stove or even pellet stove (I need proof for pellet). Applying the "mass action law" if it truly applies, states at an equilibrium temperature the products of a reaction will be constant. Well, a very "rockety" rocket will be a very high temperature. That would change the completeness calculations how much can react. On top of that, the other compounds that would not normally burn, will burn. That would make the physical maximum change from 8,600 BTU per pound to a number that is higher. Maybe as high as 10,000 BTU. After the chamber, the exhaust serpentines through a mass until it vents outside. If the temperature of the exhaust going outside, is about the temperature of the air going into the system, then the transfer efficiency is nearly 100%. If all of that is true, a rocket mass heater could have 93% efficiency compared to the true theoretical maximum.

Size Matters. When a big piece of wood is shoved into a little hole it hurts. OK. get your minds out of the gutter. Anyone who has stacked wood can tell you that a cord of wood measures 4' X 4' X 8' (a volume). When you split it and stack it, the size you split it to will depend on the hole it is going into. If it is a big fire place the pieces can be bigger, going into most rocket stoves, the hole is small. When I have stacked a cord of fireplace wood up there is usually a lot of air voids. If you were to split the wood smaller the amount of void could be a lot less. I might even be able to stack 1.3 cords of regularly chopped wood on into 1 cord volume of finer chopped wood (a guess). So optically, it looks like less wood stacked, when in fact, it is less air stacked into the wood.

Size also matters when you bring the wood into the house. Smaller wood dries faster than big wood, it is kinda a surface area thing. We see from the article water decreases efficiency (1% loss in efficiency for every 1% of water content in wood).

How to prove all this. Yea, you could rely on anecdotal (empirical) data which is "science" as well. But maybe we could take a few measurements and make some calculations.

Transfer efficiency. I would simply measure room temperature air and the temperature of the air leaving the exhaust out the building. That one may be easy.

Combustion efficiency. Well, according to the article 1% of wood is ash, the rest is stuff. I would measure x pounds of wood burnt. Then remove the ash from the stove (as complete as possible) and weigh that. If there is a 99% reduction of mass, that means you have a 100% combustion efficiency.

Size of Cord. I would stack say 3 cord of normally cut wood. Then unstack it and split it as if it were going into a rocket stove. Measure how many cords.

Moisture. I already know from working at the Forest Service, how fuel moisture is determined in wood. Look at those tests.

Now, for determining the Gross efficiency limit ... Well, I first would suggest you measure the internal temperature of the chamber of your most "rocketty" stove. Next, find out the temperature of normal wood burners. Then find out the maximum temperature where you would get 100% of the wood products to burn. Using the "law of mass action", if it applies, regress (or interpolate) the new efficiency. I have not found the temperature variable just yet but I suspect it is not linear in this case. There is evidence it is exponential, but it could be parabolic, I am really not sure.

I do not have a rocket mass heater to test on. That sounds more like a job for a Lab that actually has these kinds of stoves. But where could that be?

Conclusion? Based on what is stated, rocket mass heaters can appear to use 3 to 4 times less wood of the system they replace maybe more.

http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/docs/WDBASICS.pdf
http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-review-of-wood-and-pellet-stove.html
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheLawOfMassAction/

Tim Heierman;

I love the mid coast of Oregon. Cannon Beach, Seaside, Lincoln City, Hebo, Newport are all places I have visited and love. You live in an area I hold special in my heart. Being north of California and west of the Cascades puts you in a great place for permaculture. I am going to guess at about 75 inches of rain a year. Wow, you have a great opportunity there for someone to join you.

I, however, am not gay and I am not moving right now. But, I would love to visit and/or learn how permaculture is working in your area. The area I love so much.

All of us are being attacked from all sides. We are told that we are stupid, weird, shabby, messy, criminal and even crazy.

Why? When many of us discover permaculture we leave behind many of our desires for the normal definitions of being rich, famous or powerful. We see richness, fame and power on our little 1/10 of an acre. This is very calming form most but threating to outsiders who want what you have.

We rely on the people leading the defense (the apologetic), to always be strong in our sight. However, Geoff Lawton, Sepp, Joel Salatin, Dr. Ingham and even Paul are human beings. They are the beacons on the shore preventing us from shipwreck but even those beacons can loose intensity (they can get discouraged). Especially if the attack is well funded.

This is a time for unity, not division. That unity can begin with a single simple act, that hopefully, will strengthen our resolve.

That can start by supporting the apologetic that brought us this forum, Paul Wheaton.

Please, give a "thumbs up" on this post for Paul. Let's increase the velocity of Permaculture.

Hi all;

I was going through posts at Grants.gov and I came across an interesting post. A call for submissions for a $2.9 million grant on food safety. RFA-FD-16-017
Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance (U18). What? Is? Manufactured food?

While struggling with those questions, I noticed that instead of seeing a list of "entities" eligible to apply, they directed me to the write up so I had to do some digging (not normal). This is what I found:

"The national associations /organizations eligible to apply for funding under this cooperative agreement must be a national organization that represents State and Local manufactured food regulatory programs as a primary purpose. National Associations/Organizations have the membership, resources, structure, and expertise necessary to build national consensus amongst state and local agencies on key food safety issues. They are the primary means for communication and collaboration on issues of national significance for state and local agencies."

Looking at that and noticing that there would only be one recipient, that tells me they have someone very specific in mind already to get the $2.9 million and is awarded every year for 5 years.

But what is manufacuted food? and why do we as taxpayers need to spend almost $15 million in the next 5 years to make it safe?

So, I found a 99 page document from the fda Found here that tells me the regulations regarding "food plants". I am not 100% sure, but I think this document is mostly about inspecting and protocols of buildings that process food.
I guess it could be any building were food is packaged up. I submit Figure 1 to show how inspectors may asses risk from that document. There is a bunch more.

It seems this is born from concerns of "food borne illness" and "bioterrorism".

You can look at the grant listing here.

I thought it was interesting, looking for your thoughts.

Special note to moderator: I saw recent posts about posting standards. I am not sure if this violates those standards. Feel free to remove this post.

Mark:

There are always alternatives, if you keep thinking about it.

The way I see things (always), when growing anything (grass, vegetables, fruits or trees), the main question to answer is, "how can I enhance the soil food web?" Granted, there are other things to consider but that is the main thing. Eventually, there will be a time when the answer to the question is "nothing".

Studying permaculture has made me see the world in a different light. I see that anything organic will eventually become soil. That is just as true for table scraps as it is for paper, tree branches, cotton t-shirts and even our bodies. Realizing that, I see free resources around me everywhere (in the suburbs, city and country) and people call it trash.

OK, enough of the monologue. I have seen Dr. Ingham rehabilitate golf courses by applying a compost tea formulated for that golf course. Compost tea (or extract) is a liquid that can be applied to soils to help them get a jump start on building a healthy soil food web. That is the quick version of applying a layer of compost on your lawn. It may be cheaper than 7 cubic yards of compost, but you may need to apply it a few times before you have a well established soil food web. You might be able to "create" the tea (or extract) you need from 1 cubic yard of compost or just buy it as a tea. You may want to google "compost tea" with your town name to see if there is a local source. Also, there are probably several people in your own town that you can talk to about this. Also, keep your eye on craigslist in the "free" section and the "lawn and garden" section.

Paul;

Crazy is as crazy does. We can blame the thoughtlessness in our society on a lot of things (I blame participation trophies).

I though about this when I read the the comment about the info graphic on permies and when I went to facebook and saw the "hate". See that comment stream here.

Three thoughts came to mind.

1) You have to be durable (your words from "Velocity"). "Life is not fair, get used to it." Bill Gates recently said that, and somehow that is innovative?

2) People are stupid and lazy. When a person says, "show reference" or whatever they said, it shows that they are lazy. The procedure is to come up with a counter argument with sufficient unimpeachable evidence so they can take the high ground in the argument. They have the burden of disproof. Them not realizing that is evidence they are stupid.

3) In America, Speech is free. In the world, facebook (and this forum) is free. However, slander and hate carry a heavy price. You say it yourself all the time... "Focusing on doing good, being good, and sharing good rather than being angry at bad, evil, stupid and lazy people. " OK. I am paraphrasing.

I do not need to remind you how much good you have done so far, you have people that actually love you doing that right now (I am guessing). You have taught me not to let the crazy impede my progress in doing good, I know you feel the same. Trust me, "I'm a scientist".