Dude!!? Get a clue, get a stove!!...or a girlfriend...OR A LIFE!!
*geek

OK

From the caretaker of the cooking channel:
(Shepppard above has the low-down on good tater production!)

Made these 2 days ago:

4lbs unpeeled, red potatoes
stick o butter
3'4-1 cup Buttermilk
1-2 small cloves garlic
black,white,red pepper, sea salt, to taste

boil potatoes, rinse, drain, return to stove top on warm
with electric hand mixer, add other ingredients till creamy 'n fluffy, you may not use all the butter and buttermilk, so add and mix, repeat.

I covered these taters with some brown mushroom gravy with a red wine 'n sherry reduction added for some more levels of yum.

Oh and garlic. If you are going to add garlic, why fuck up your taters with powdered garlic? The stuff goes rancid too fast, and degradation of essence of ANY herb occurs once it has been processed.
Use a garlic masher yer a pussy, slice it or chop it, you are insane. Take the edge of a large chef's knife or cleaver and pulverize the clove with a quick blow of of fist. Bisect it, it's easier a half-at-a-time.

Garlic presses are for posers as well, and trying to wash one a pain-in-the-ass. Don't be a pussy, get a cleaver, they're like $5 at a Chinese grocery.

So... PlayhousePals?? You wanna me come over 'n rock yer kitchen sometime??

Oooah, oooah,
Oooah, oooah,
Oooah, oooah,
Oooah...

[Now I lay me down to sleep... ! ]

Do you wanna dance?
Do you wanna fight?
Do you wanna get drunk and stay the night?

{{Knowing what's the price of me/leave?}}

Do you wanna dance?
Do you wanna fight?
Do you wanna get drunk and stay the night?
Do you wanna smoke till our throats are sore?
Make out and then talk and then make out some more?
Do you wanna dance?
Do you wanna fight?
Do you get drunk and stay the night?
Do you wanna know all the things I do
Where I'm all alone and thinking about you?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do it!

Do you wanna go back home?
Your animals are all alone
And there's a chicken waiting on the stove
And your cousin left his DVD of "Swinging In The 70s"
And do you wanna go back home?
Check your messages and charge your phone
Oh are you, really sure you wanna go?
When you could do it with a rock star, do it with a rock star?

Wait, wait, wait!
I'll be fine in a minute
Oh, oh oh
Wait, wait, wait!
I'll be fine in a minute
Fine in a minute

I don't want your body just a part to listen to INXS
All the practice in the world
Won't get me good at loneliness-less
Loneliness-less, loneliness-less-less-less-less

Do you wanna dance?
Do you wanna fight?
Do you wanna get drunk and stay the night?
Do you want to see all my cavities?
Talk about the crisis in the Middle East?
Do you wanna get really terrified?
Th'icecaps are all melting and we're gonna die
Do you wanna cry?
I can make you cry
Do you wanna hit me baby one more time?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you wanna?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do you?
Do it!

Do you wanna go back home?
Your animals are all alone
And there's a chicken waiting on the stove
And your cousin left his DVD of "Swinging In The 70s"

And do you wanna go back home?
Check your messages and charge your phone
Oh are you, really sure you wanna go?
When you could do it with a rock star, do it with a rock star?

Wait, wait, wait!
I'll be fine in a minute
Oh, oh oh
Wait, wait, wait!
I'll be fine in a minute
Wait, wait, wait! (Do you wanna go back home?)
I'll be fine in a minute
Oh, oh oh
Wait, wait, wait! (Do you wanna go back home?)
I'll be fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a minute
Fine in a

>> ^bobknight33:

Unless you have young kids you have no room to talk. You don't have knowledge to make any judgement.
Parenting IS filtering out inappropriate material.
I'm talking when a 6 year old is clicking channels to get to his cartoon channel it at times comes across inappropriate material.
WRT to web serving same thing. The kid can be you You-tubing or sifting for kitty cat stuff and come across some wild stuff. Sure I don't want my 6 and 7 year seeing women and men rubbing up against each other or to watch some brutal gang violence event that some posted. What parent would? Some parents don't mind at all and that a darn shame. There are limits for kids and parenting filtering is a must.

I take responsibility for my kids upbringing. If other parents stepped up to the plate kids would have better moral compass.
When you have kids, revisit your post.
You don't seem to have high regard for the parenting skills from you mother. sorry to hear that.

>> ^VoodooV:
Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!
It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.
You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.
Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.



Once again, bob laughably attempts to claim moral superiority over everyone. Sorry, but you aren't magically granted wisdom the instant the kid pops out of the womb.

When you fail to educate your kids WHY things are inappropriate and just filter because "you said so" then you're not accomplishing anything. Authority without the actual facts to back it up fails EVERY time to kids with nothing better to do than to rebel. It's the hot stove analogy which you apparently failed to learn. Parents will tell you to not touch that hot stove. Kids disregard this and touch it anyway and are immediately introduced to the facts of WHY you shouldn't touch a hot stove and guess what..they never do it again.

If you told a kid to never touch a cold stove...because you said so. The kid eventually touches it and learns that nothing bad comes of it. Not only are they encouraged to rebel. Your authority is undermined and they learn that you're full of shit and continue to ignore you.

In other words, since bob probably hasn't been following. Moral authority means absolutely jack unless you have provable facts to back it up. When kids find out you're bullshitting them. Kids have this pesky thing called the ability to learn and the ability to detect bullshit. Telling them not to do something only because your imaginary friend up in the clouds told you so has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass when the imaginary friend in the clouds doesn't punish them because that imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Bob lives in the typical republican bubble where he deludes himself into believing he's the good parent and everyone else is lacking. What's it like being so self-centered bob?

And once again, Bob cherry picks what he wants to hear and disregards everything else. I praise my mom for teaching me that TV is make-believe and all bob chooses to hear is the negative part. You are utterly incapable of having a rational discussion bob. I've proven this time and time again. The sift is going to continue to beat you over the head with logic and rationality every time until hopefully you learn something.

>> ^garmachi:

Avid backpacker here. While I like the idea and support the cause, I probably won't get one for two reasons. First, my routine includes zero electronics while out in the wilderness. I do bring my phone, for emergencies, but I leave it powered off. Usually I'm someplace with no signal anyway. Second, it costs four times what I paid for my pocket rocket five years ago.


It's also 33 oz. Kinda heavy, considering you don't have to carry fuel.

@bmacs27 Mostly the costs, TEGs aren't cheap, so I would wager the low end on the cost scale is about 50 bucks or so for the stove version give or take about 20 bucks. And indeed you are right, improving the state of being for billions is what the cry of energy is about. Costs are important as it dictates how many people we can help via our limited abilities. If we wanted to help ALL of them RIGHT NOW, it would cost 100 billion or so, which isn't a huge sum. But it is only access to 2 Watt/hours. This is very back of the envelope, so there are many other factors, but lets say we used that money instead to buy power plants. Let's even get something fancy, some high tech CCGT plants. They cost about .6 bucks per Watt hour. For 2 billion people consuming 2W/hs of electricity, that is about 4 gigiwatts/H which on our stoves cost us about 100 billion. Now a .5GW CCGT plan will run you about .3 billion per unit, but you only need 2.4 billion in funds to supply that level of electricity. If you spent the same kind of cash on CCGT plants, you would go from 4GW/H to 166GW/H. Basically, you can help 2 orders of magnitude more people if you invested in other technology, or help that same amount that much more. Now, that isn't completely accurate, power infrastructure costs money, but it is money well spent, even if you burn up an entire order of magnitude. It wouldn't hurt if a few thousand people had one of these, but if you wanted to help 2 billion, it would be a huge mistake. The only reason I keep harping on this is because they marketed themselves so heavily as some wide solution for the third world. A good third world solution doesn't always look like a first world solution, so I am not suggesting there is no merit here, but it would help very few people and to a relatively low level compared to other options. Perhaps small progress, though, is a good way to go about it, I can't say. I would guess they would be better off dropping off some steam system that burns wood and let them power their entire houses instead of a cellphone. There is an older paper about using rice husks in developing world in steam engines to generate electricity, and husks have a bit less energy density than wood fiber. They seemed to think it was pretty viable. There are some technical challenges, but I think those are easier to overcome than spending 100billion for 2W/Hs for 2 billion people. But I digress.

@bmacs27 Cell phones don't launch you to a higher standard of living more than a fully integrated energy system. Refrigeration, transportation, fertilizer, steel production, manufacturing, iron ore reprocessing, food production, water purification, medicine distribution/production/manufacture ect. These things require TONS of energy, something a cellphone charger stove is not. A phone charging stove, IMO, will confer very little improvement to the standard of living to the their world. "Worthwhile" is a pretty arbitrary idea, though, so there isn't a "right" answer per say. But I would wager greater quality of life would be had if you used all the money from these stove thingies into an energy infrastructure; having access to clean water and a electrical grid might be better than a marginally cleaner stove.

Particulate matter is usually the risk associated with burning coals and woods from coal and wood ash. Greenhouse isn't the issue (the CO2 in plants will go back into the air via decomposition), it is the junk that goes into your lungs. Less is good, but electric stoves (or gas) would be better as you can move the source of smoke to some distant place. I don't know the economics of small village towns, so perhaps this has a place as a stopgap until there is serious economic development, but it isn't a very big step...so I am trying some googlefu to see how much they plan to spend over there on these. If it is like 10k bucks or something, then ya, those 200 people or so you help is niceish, if they plan to spend millions, or they are charging them instead of handing them out, then other developments would be far better. As someone who has burned wood to heat a house as the primary source, it isn't fun, even if it was 50% better, using money to buy a better stove would of been silly compared to just using gas or electric provided there was an system for doing so. I think money would be better spent developing those systems instead of vesting money in a dead end technology (burning wood). One might liken it to fixing up that old car that keeps breaking down, it is a money trap...best to go get a better car if you could.

Even so, I think I might get one in the future for camping. Could be fun to mess with the TEG and main container to perhaps tweak some higher power levels out of it!

Also, the claim about CO emission might be correct if you consider the entire life-cycle of getting the fuel to the stove. The gas needed to be extracted, likely purified through a process requiring energy, somehow packaged in materials requiring energy to create and at pressure which would require further energy. Then it needs to be distributed as well. The sticks you just pick up, and before they fell they had a negative carbon footprint.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@spawnflagger and @bmacs27
This wiki is one of the things I consult often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities


Regardless of how effective you make burning wood, it will NEVER be as energetic as the same volume of gas or petrol. And if gas/petrol/coal engines are out of reach financially, burning wood for electricity most likely will be as well. Though, spawn pointed out perhaps it supplying a regular stream of electricity of very little energy makes up for the lack of conductivity of poor communities. I don't tend to share that opinion and think that their standard of living will only be greatly improved with access to very large amounts of cheap energy; the difference between starting up a camp fire and an actual power plant. Helping a poor society charge connected devices isn't what catapults counties into the first world, having an infrastructure of energy is.
And ya, they are using a TEGs for electrical generation. It provides the lion share of energy to the fan that is helping aid complete combustion for the smoke reduction. This is why it is such a poor electrical device, TEGs are horrible in the efficiency department. You could get far more electrical output via some type of steam device burning wood than this; which would more than likely benefit an entire town via its considerable electrical output (for the third world). But it should be known before hand that wood burning is dirty business. Even if you engaged in catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide, burning wood on a large scale for electrical generation would have similar effects to the health of a community as a coal fire plant; perhaps worse because it would be located much closer to the population than coal fire plants usually are.
And to be fair to this thing, I think it is pretty cool...but for the first world. Unless they are literally handing these out in the third world, it will do them no benefit, and the money they spend handing these out...they could be installing a power distribution system with an actual power plant and improve their well being by orders of magnitude.


Now this I disagree with. They are right that most third world countries are using wood cooking fires anyway. So simply the smoke and emission savings over that are worthwhile. The electrical generation is a nice side benefit, and many of those countries are seeing the proliferation of small electrical devices, e.g. cell phones and leds. I think it's a device that could greatly improve the lives of people in less developed communities (especially the home stove version).

>> ^bmacs27:

@spawnflagger: Less CO emissions than a white gas/fuel stove? I call BS.


Yeah, it doesn't go into detail on the measurements. Probably the claim is that "because it burns more efficiently, our stove needs less wood than these other wood-burning-stoves". But if you compared that to cooking with propane or natural gas, I'm sure the latter 2 will be much better than wood. But their target market is one where these other gasses aren't readily available.

I was looking at Thermoelectric Generators (TEGs) as a result of seeing this video. It's basically a peltier cooler in reverse.

@spawnflagger: Less CO emissions than a white gas/fuel stove? I call BS.

Your video, Camp stove generates electricity for USB charging, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">

Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.

Edit, did some googling, and found their electrical output is about 2Watts (not enough to power most light bulbs), and they cost about 130 bucks. Those kind of cost to power ratios are WAAAAAAAAY out of touch of the needs of third world counties, you need kilowatts before you have any real needs met. If you ran this 24/7 for a year, the annual cost of electricity...not including the burning material is 7.42 dollars per KWH. The average cost of electricity in the US is about 10 cents per KWH, marking this as a third world solution is pretty shitty.


Actually, they have a bigger HomeStove as well, and neither it nor the CampStove are really meant to have a primary purpose of generating electricity - the main purpose is to cook things, and the surplus electricity is a nice side effect. According to this page: http://www.biolitestove.com/homestove/homestove-technology/ , the reason this is better than a regular fire or older rocket stove is fewer CO emissions (eco-friendly) and less smoke (health hazard) for cooking the same meals.

In India, there are tons of people with mobile phones, but the power grid is not reliable and there are frequent rolling blackouts. Of course, people could just wait for power to come back to charge their phone, but if you are cooking at the time, why not use the stove?

I think the high price of the CampStove is meant to help lower the price of the HomeStove for these other markets.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics

Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.


Well if you're going to do it *anyway*...

>> ^KnivesOut:

Sounds like they're solving some third world problems too.>> ^Deano:
Solves a key first-world problem.



Hopefully so! I just wanted to have my little joke.