really injoy reading your publication

A fan with no moving parts? That\'s clever!

If it produces no black carbon, then it must be producing CO2. Better to stick with the black carbon! Also, a cheaper idea: Why not fit a fan above the flames? The heat would turn this fan, which is connected to the fan underneath, which turns and blows oxygen into the fire. Rather like a miniature jet engine. I might try this myself!

I just went to the site, and they said it uses the waste heat. Why is it wasted? Also they said smoke is eliminated. See my previous comments. I\'ve just watched the video. It is really impressive.

how do you buy this?

windykites1...oh, where to start?
1. Of course it produces CO2. It\'s a wood stove. All wood stoves produce CO2. As far as wood fuel goes, that makes it carbon neutral (trees use CO2 to grow more wood, you know).
2. A fan above driving a fan below smacks of perpetual motion. It can\'t produce more that it\'s driven by, therefore won\'t move nearly enough air to matter. (and that\'s assuming you solve the problems with the upper bearings working in over 1000degF heat)
3. All thermodynamic processes produces waste heat. None are 100% efficient. Any heat not transferred (in this case) directly to the food in the cooking pot/pan is considered waste. Every touch your kitchen stove burner after cooking? That\'s waste heat. 4. The acrid smoke contains everything bad you don\'t want around a cooking stove. It\'s a primary cause of premature death in third world countries who have to cook over an inefficient wood fire inside.

J\'adorre ce fourneau. C\'est juste ce qu\'il me faut pour préparer mes futures balades familiales...
I definitely like this stove. Where can I get one?

Oldhacker. Point 2 in your letter: it does not smack of perpetual motion. Did you see I mentioned a jet engine? That is how they work, only in this case it is upside down. You would not need bearings at the top. One set at the bottom would suffice. And think about it. Does the top of the stove melt? No of course not! You would also use this stove outside your tent, not inside. I am aware of carbon neutral wood, but soot is preferable to CO2. That is called carbon capture

windykites1: putting a turbine in the middle of the fire, in the manner you suggest (while it would probably work ok, the energy coming from the burning wood obviously), will likely disrupt combustion and will definitely disperse heat away from the center of the fire, meaning a less efficient stove.
Regarding \"carbon capture\", your first of all not capturing a meaningful amount of carbon (the soot is a very small percentage of the original wood) and it\'s a moot point anyway since burning wood is part of a relatively quick and stable carbon cycle where the carbon is easily handled by our natural enviroment, unlike fossil fuels.

windykites1: Sorry I didn\'t explain that point more clearly or in detail. For the fan to be effective, it needs to move a lot of air...In other words the fan needs to be spinning in the upper hundreds to mid thousands of revolutions per minute. I\'ve seen many Finish and Norwegian Christmas toys built as large/multiple candle driven heat engines, very similar to what you have described. They typically turn a fan only 10 to 15 revs a minute. I feel that model more accurately predicts the potential performance of the fan you describe than a jet engine. (You could have also mentioned an automobile turbo charger...probably a more accessible \'model\'.)
I have to stick by my comments about the \'over 1000degF\' heat, though. The top of the stove is not exposed to the center of combustion and is probably seeing much less than 600degF. Unless you\'re using exotic alloys, or ceramics, placing thin metal in the center of combustion or even 2\" above will more that likely bring it to it\'s melting point.
But, I\'ll certainly admit I could be wrong about the fan. It\'s just a gut feeling based on several decades of mechanical engineering design projects. Tell you what...if you build one that works and market it, I\'ll be the first guy in line to buy one from you!
Slightly different subject or \'When soot is not preferable to CO2\'; The stove technology used here is common among designs targeted towards solving serious problems faced today in 3rd world countries. Typically, poorly vented indoor wood fires are used for preparing every meal as well as a heat source.
The point of these new designs of stoves (Google \'rocket stove\') is to eliminate the (combustible) wood smoke in order to 1. Burn the fuel source much, much more efficiently, thus reducing deforestation, and 2. Lower the death rates due to the almost constant exposure to the toxic wood smoke.
Although the primary point of these newer designs has nothing to do with CO2 reduction, by burning half as much fuel, you are also cutting your CO2 production in half. That\'s 50%. Think about it. That\'s infinitely better than using 2 or 3 times as much fuel/CO2 in order to capture a thin layer of soot on the bottom of a pan. And reducing the amount of wood used each day also means more live trees left standing to deal with the CO2.
Thanks for responding.