Frank and all,
I respectfully disagree. If we present no data from the lab tests and
there are none, (or few, and fewer that are comparable to each other)
from testing in the field, then we have zero data about the stoves.
Who are we trying to serve? Who are we trying to protect?
Let's get some data that can be used. So far, the Jetter data from EPA
(final figures, not raw data sets) is the most cited and respected.
There have been other comparisons by Aprovecho and one done at CSU that
should not be forgotten. The comparative graph that I made several
years ago used Aprovecho data plus the initial results of TLUD testing.
We all sit waiting for the release of the next set of results from EPA
(Jim said the results should be out in about September.)
At Aprovecho Stove Camp this year (22 - 26 July, with co-leader Dr
TLUD), we will be getting some additional results that should give
interesting comparisons. Soon I will post to the Stoves Listserv some
notes on the testing, so that Frank and Dale and Crispin and Tami and
all others can comment and refine what will be done. And I hope that
many of you will be able to attend.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 4/27/2013 12:43 PM, Frank Shields wrote:
Dear Paul,
IMO
Crispin is right about only giving you the data. And you should be
careful to whom you pass on the data to and how its presented and how
you and others look at it.
If there is a list of ten TLUD stoves tested. The results are
presented in two ways: (1) One set uses oven dried fuel of perfect
size and introduced to the stove in a very attentive, scientific manor
while the other set of results (2) are using a classification of 'real
fuel' and introduced to the stove as determined by a Tool Box Observer
(TBO) of mothers of four kids running around,, one in the flour sack
and the other wanting a band aid on the knee, while trying to cook a
meal -- which set of test data do you thing the NGO wants when making
a decision to purchase that will best reflect what will be seen in the
field? The first set of tests are only research data and should NOT be
presented in any way to the public. The second set does not exist
because we have not classified the fuel and established a means to
control the introduction of fuel to the stove when doing the testing
in the stove BOX.
Regards
Frank
Thanks
Frank Shields
BioChar Division
Control Laboratories, Inc.
42 Hangar Way
Watsonville, CE 95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(81) 724-3188 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.controllabs.com
*From:*Stoves [mailto:[email protected]] *On
Behalf Of *Paul Anderson
*Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33 AM
*To:* [email protected]; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves;
Hugh McLaughlin; Jim Jetter
*Subject:* [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for
complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
Stovers,
I asked Crispin to name the stoves for which the reported results are
not accurate. And he named one of mine, the Quad 2, which happens to
be about the ONLY stove for which raw data sets have been made
available on the Internet.
(So, to the the GACC and EPA and others: My request for more
disclosure of raw data set is STILL not satisfied, although we have
received assurances of eventual compliance.)
Unfortunately, Crispin sent his reply only to me. Perhaps he was
trying to be nice. But I want the cards on the table for ALL stoves,
and it does not matter if one of my stoves is presented in a bad light
(TEMPORARILY). Much of this depends on how the data is presented,
both in calculations and in discussions.
So much talk and so little reality.
I am NOT here to defend or condemn stoves that make charcoal (and they
are mainly the TLUD stoves). The reality is that they exist, and are
consistently shown to be among the lowest of biomass-fueled cookstoves
in emissions of CO and PM .
And they do not require wood as fuel. Those are facts.
Let the discussions continue. But I am happy that others have been
doing the discussion.
Dr TLUD
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>
On 4/27/2013 2:08 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Sorry for not replying. I am on a job in Palo Alto, CA.
The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and
gets (got, anyway) a rating of 636g.
The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1.
However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that
category. The UNFCCC uses the CCT 2.0 (names it specifically) and
that uses the energy efficiency, not the fuel efficiency as the
metric to compare on the assumption that stoves do not make char.
Regards
Crispin travelling
From BB9900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *Paul Anderson <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:20 -0500
*To: *Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data
of cookstove tests.
Crispin,
You wrote:
stoves that actually take off 3 tons of biomass per year have been
getting credit for taking only one ton and proclaimed to be
'better' and 'more fuel efficient' than a two-ton stove.
Please provide an example. If it is a specific stove, then name
the names and give the data.
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>
On 4/25/2013 10:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Paul
Here is the problem restated slightly better without prejudice
re other biomass:
If someone is interested in the char, it can be reported -- it
is in the raw data set. What Ron is proposing, to reduce the
energy in the fuel consumed by the heat energy available in
the remaining char, is akin to considering the fuel efficiency
to be the energy efficiency which is precisely what created
for us a problem in the first place.
The energy value of the char came from somewhere. Consider a
stove that needs 2 tons of biomass per year to operate. If it
produces ΒΌ of a ton of biomass energy equivalent in the form
of char, fine. Say so. But saying so does not reduce the two
tons of biomass it takes to feed the system. If you have (as
you pointed out) a second stove that can utilise the charcoal,
then that can be viewed as a 'system' by all and sundry, but
is still does not change the fact that Stove 1 takes two tons
of biomass each year which is what the reported fuel
consumption should be. The impact of a system is not the same
as the impact of a component of that system. The only debate
left is how to report the fuel consumption and by-products.
What has been happening that is wrong, in my view, is that
stoves that actually take off 3 tons of biomass per year have
been getting credit for taking only one ton and proclaimed to
be 'better' and 'more fuel efficient' than a two-ton stove.
Plainly this is not the case and the test method has to report
the fuel consumption correctly. It is a problem that the
UNFCCC methodology (which measures energy efficiency) does not
handle this well and it is being used for CDM trades. People
are being cheated.
Regards
Crispin
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
