I view the point as valid but a quibble. I concede your main point and perhaps you can concede mine.
It is true the use of a non-woody fuel saves wood. It is often available. Now, the fuel efficiency (not the wood fuel efficiency) of a stove that doesn't burn fully the fuel placed into it cannot reasonably be claimed to have a consumption lower than its demand for raw fuel. That is my core objection to the calculation method that converts energy yielded into a 'fuel consumption' number. It is of course 'a number' but it is not the fuel consumption and never was. There are many more stoves that have had their fuel consumption understated and it is because of the char they make but can't burn. It is not complicated or aimed at TLUD's that make char. It is just a conceptual error that must be corrected so we can get on with testing. There are several other conceptual problems to deal with which are harder to explain than the (rather obvious) fuel consumption one. What gives me hope is the rapid adoption of emissions per net MJ in the pot or in the room. That alone solves all sorts of metrics issues. Regards Crispin -----Original Message----- From: Paul Anderson <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:46:23 To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; Ranyee Chiang<[email protected]> Subject: Efficiencies regarding wood, non-wood, and charcoal Re: [Stoves] Alternative to charcoal Dear Crispin, Ron Larson, and Stovers with char interests, Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD" Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072 Website: www.drtlud.com On 4/9/2013 12:18 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote: > > <snipped> > > If I put 1 kg of 15% moisture wattle (15.9 MJ/kg) into a TLUD stove > and create 20% char (20% of the moist mass) the net heat provided by > the fire is 10 MJ/kg. The heat available from the char is still 29.5 > so the total is the difference the bit between: 15.9-10 = 5.9 MJ. > > If someone wants to switch from wood fuel to a 'cleaner' TLUD and that > TLUD is not 1.5 times as efficient in transferring heat, their raw > fuel consumption will increase. > > The numbers are correct, but the language is biased. "If...switch from WOOD fuel..., their RAW fuel ..... " How about saying "If switch from wood fuel stove to a TLUD that does not need to use wood fuel, their wood fuel consumption could be eliminated." Is the issue about WOOD or is it about efficiencies of devices (TLUDs) that leave charcoal behind? Actually, both are important, but the norms of reporting of stove testing with biomass fuels are too intimately connected with wood because so many stoves are designed as*_only _*wood burners. Let's stop criticizing or penalizing the TLUDs because they make charcoal. And the new testing protocols/reports MUST have clarity of wording about efficiencies without the innuendo that TLUDs lack efficiency because wood (if used) is turned into charcoal. Paul
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
