Dear Ron
I think you will have to look carefully at what I am trying to achieve because
I find your restatements of my analyses different from my explanations.
Jim and I agree, as for Paul A and many others, that the performance rating of
a stove has to be for that product, not a programme in which other issues are
included. The reason for this segregation is that claims made for a stove have
to scientifically valid. Claims made for projects that include additional
considerations also have to valid. I have no problem with projects doing all
sorts of complicated things like having a chain of stoves that use by products
of each other, with calculating carbon emitted or not. But when it comes to
dividing the portions of such projects into their (valid) segments, the rating
of what happens in each ‘box’ as Frank calls them, must stand on its own.
One of the items on my ‘to do’ list is to share a perspective on the use of
terms like fuel efficiency and energy efficiency and heat transfer efficiency.
These terms are different and cannot be mixed together. A lot of the
misdirection on stove performance and fuel consumption has its roots in the
difference between energy efficiency (how much was used to cook) and the fuel
consumption (where remaining fuel is tossed or goes to some other purposes).
>Thermal efficiency is calculated per the WBT protocol as: 3 / (10 – 2) = 0.375
[RWL2: For later use, lets call this E1. See also a later note about
possibly needing to subtract energy in unconverted wood.]
That is the energy efficiency – the amount of energy that was liberated and the
% of it that got into the pot (usually measured incorrectly, but bear with me).
>If the char is “discarded,” then thermal efficiency can be calculated as: 3 /
>10 = 0.3 [RWL3 E2]
That is the fuel efficiency because it describes the consumption of fuel, some
the energy was liberated, some was not. Conventionally, these are called
mechanical and chemical losses (solid v.s. gaseous losses).
>The thermal efficiency for char production can be calculated as: 2 / 10 = 0.2
> [RWL4: E3]
That is not a ‘thermal efficiency’. An efficiency is a ratio. The char produced
is not a ratio save expressed as a mass of char per dry mass of input fuel, or
an energy contained (potentially) v.s. the energy contained (potentially) in
the raw fuel. Neither is an energy efficiency because in both cases no energy
is released and no work is done. It is just a way of expressing the mass or
energy contained within some fuels.
>I think you are proposing to add the thermal efficiencies for cooking and char
>production: ( 3 / 10 ) + ( 2 / 10 ) = 0.5
[RWL5: Right - E4= E2+E3]
This is not possible because the units are not compatible. Making char is not
an ‘energy efficiency’. It is the processing of a raw biomass into a processed
biomass with a different energy density per unit mass.
I’m not in favor of doing this, because, while there is a common denominator, I
think the numerators are like apples and oranges – cooking (useful) energy and
fuel (stored) energy.
[RWL6: I agree they are apples and oranges. But sometimes the question is
asked - how much "fruit" do you have and in this example the answer is
certainly E4 = 0.5.
They are like comparing two different things which is why they have different
units. The analogy breaks down at the ‘fruit’ question because they are not
both ‘fruit’. One is an energy transfer question and the other is a fuel
processing question.
>As long as the number "E3=0.2" is given a little prominence, I don't care if
>the number E4 = 0.5 is also given. I expect promotional char-makers will be
>using both E3 and E4, of course.
Understanding why they cannot be ‘added’ is very important to this discussion.
They are different. Char making is a reportable feature of a stove, if you
wish. Jim and I agree on how to report the difference between fuel consumption
and energy consumption. The % of char produced from the available carbon (for
instance) is a third metric. It is not part of ‘thermal performance’, it is one
of the variables used in the calculation of energy efficiency. It cannot be
added to something from which it has just been subtracted. Clearing up the
prevailing confusion (if any remains) is an important step in getting test
results of comparable value.
Regards
Crispin
_______________________________________________
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/
