Dear Ron

 

You will like this. You can create any tool you like for measuring anything you 
like as long it will pass peer review. Once it has been accepted as valid and 
uses valid metrics and acceptable definitions, it can be used to conduct 
approved tests. If it can be conducted simultaneously with other tests, no 
problem. You can report both results.

 

If your metric is mass of char per dry mass of input fuel, for example, that 
could give a mass-related metric (a fuel production efficiency). A better 
metric might be energy output in the form of char divided by the energy 
available in the input raw material. That would be a form of energy efficiency 
in the secondary fuel.

 

There are a set of definitions (with many clearly stated ‘efficiencies’) so 
when it comes time to define the metrics and describe the testing tool, the 
protocol should be written in the light of those.

 

What you want to do is to have an experiment that normalises just about 
everything so no matter what the fuel or stove or circumstances, the result is 
valid. You don’t want a test that is only valid for one particular set of 
circumstances. For example you would not want to have emissions per kg of fuel 
because if you used a different fuel, the results are not directly comparable 
which would obviate the whole point of creating a comparative matrix.

 

I will circulate some definitions perhaps before the end of this week to kick 
things off.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Major stove-test proposal

 

Crispin  -  cc Stoves:

   Does your "Toolkit" include a proposal for how one should report the 
efficiency of char-making in a cookstove?

Ron

  _____  

From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:15:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Major stove-test proposal




Dear Paul

 

Further to this I can report that there is significant progress on 
systematising this proposal into the form of a Standard with three sections, or 
three titles that biomass combusting devices naturally fall into. In fact that 
could even be refined further by saying that there are three testing approaches 
that provide comparisons contained in one methodology.

 

They are: devices that heat water only (which is so common that they can be 
specifically tuned for that alone); devices that are used for cooking (they can 
be controlled enough to give a cook a good cooking experience with enough power 
and controllability); and comparative testing where an absolute measure is not 
required, but which tests one stove against another doing exactly the same 
thing (usually for determining the relative performance of a locally or 
culturally relevant task). 

 

The measurements are based on a determination of what constitutes a decent and 
acceptable cooking experience, which of course varies from region to region. 
Working back from that, it is possible to set certain targets for performance 
that are scientifically rooted and defined.

 

The definitions required are being compiled at this time. A few people have 
been asked for input and then I will circulate it further. It is very much open 
for discussion. The Stove Testing Toolbox is a set of agreed methods with their 
attendant definitions and metrics, each of which exists independently and is 
valid on its own. At the moment there are two ‘tools’ that seem to be well 
defined enough to work well.

 

One is for determining the heat transfer efficiency of a hot stove at high 
power and the other is for determining the average heat transfer efficiency 
over a long burn at one or more power levels including ignition. The latter 
captures the influence of the thermal mass of a heavy stove – something 
building into the Chinese National Standard at the moment though it does so in 
a manner that has not been examined in much detail. Emissions are easily added 
to the TET numbers based on the mass emitted per net MJ in the pot. Determining 
the MJ in the pot of a wok or for frying has been a problem. This has been 
addressed.

 

The thermal efficiency tests (TET) are similar to the BS, Indian and SeTAR 
tests meaning they track the heat transferred including the Cp of the pot.

 

More details will follow when the documentation is organised.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

This was not cross-posted to the biochar list

 

+++++++

 

Stovers and biochar folks.

The message below and attachment were sent but not distributed (because of too 
many other recipients).

That explains why there was so little discussion!!  

I consider this document to be highly important.    So here it is, a month late 
but still to be read.

 

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>    Skype: paultlud  
Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 



-------- Original Message -------- 


Subject: 

Major stove-test proposal


Date: 

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:41:54 -0500


From: 

Paul Anderson  <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>


To: 

Discussion of biomass cooking stoves  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>,  <mailto:[email protected]> 
"[email protected]"  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>, Hugh McLaughlin  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>, Bob Fairchild  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>, Noeli Anderson  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>, Doc Anderson  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>, Ranyee Chiang  <mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>

 

Dear All,
 
Here at the GACC Forum, a truly major proposal about adjustments of 
stove-testing method has been made.   It is just beginning to reach 
those who should be involved.   Feel free to forward the attached 
document to others.   And I understand that some additional proposals 
are being formulated, but I have no details on them.
 
I will send further comments eventually, but you can start 
discussions.   The conference is very productive.  Including some truly 
meaningful TLUD progress!!!
 
Paul
 
-- 
Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>    Skype: paultlud  
Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 
 
 

 

 


_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected] <mailto:[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/

_______________________________________________
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/

Reply via email to