Crispin and list
#1. You have added only extraneous material re naming, China, kilns. You did
not at all address the issue of treating char-making stoves fairly.
#a. Same response. You did not address the topic of differentiating between
char-making stoves. Apparently you are happy that your money making stove in
Indonesia will receive a report that says nothing about the char produced?
#b1 Same response. You have a typo "for a that stove" that precludes a
definitive answer since I don't know whether to strike "a" or "the". I
continue to believe that the present approach being used by Jim reports
everything you ask for - and always has. The only new material I know about I
am delighted with - the amount of char and the energy in the char is
specifically now provided. It was always there, but hidden. Char-making stove
people couldn't be happier with this small change in reported results.
#b2 -i You write about the formula A/(B-C): "... it has been misleading
people ever since it was introduced"
I agree. - but for opposite reasons than you. It undervalues the
production of char. I am willing to let it ride, since my preference is also
being shown.
- ii You write: " Char? Fine, if it too can be burned as fuel. If it is
not usable, it is not fuel. Same as ash as far as that stove is concerned." I
am sorry that you don't see how unfair this statement is to char-making stoves
-- where people (including you) can make money on the char - whether used as
fuel or put in the ground. You are taking income away from the poorest with
your stance.
- iii Your last sentences: The WBT was changed and that was the major
point of Jim’s recent webinar to which you posed a number of questions and
which he answered repeatedly.
[RWL: And I was happy with all the answers.]
I am again answering that same question.
[RWL: With answers different from Jim's]
The fuel consumption considers whether or not the remaining fuel is fuel for
that same stove. If it is not, it shall be considered consumed.
[RWL: You are (I think) the only one saying this should be the rule.
Certainly no-one who thinks making char in a stove is better economically and
environmentally - regardless of where it ends up. Of course for climate
reasons I want it to go in the ground, but I started on this topic in the
early 1990s just to save trees. Char-making stoves can do both, but since
char-makig stoves are more efficient and cleaner, char-using stoves are on
their way out.
>
> End of short story. Take it up with Jim if you do not agree with this reality.
[RWL: I see no need to. I think Jim is handling "reality" correctly and
has already said so on this list several times.]
On Oct 22, 2013, at 5:56 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Ron
>
> >Crispin and stoves list (again ignored - why?)
>
> 1. The "game" I am playing is to ensure that charcoal-making stoves are
> treated fairly. Saying that existing char at the end of a run has been
> "consumed" is not fair.
>
> How do you suggest we term the fuel that enters a stove once, each time the
> stove is operated through a burning cycle? Should that be the fuel consumed?
> The fuel needed per cycle? The fuel use? The fuel demand? Give it a name and
> let’s see how it flies.
>
> We are speaking of course of raw biomass in this case. Whatever biomass goes
> into a stove, per cycle, drawn from the available supply, and which needs to
> be drawn again the next time, needs a name.
>
> In the strict sense of the word ‘consumed’ it has been consumed as far as
> that stove is concerned. In another sense, from an outside perspective which
> can see additional uses for that remainder, whether it be ashes or char, it
> has ‘produced something’. No problem. One can view it that way, but it will
> not change the raw fuel demand for a new cycle unless some of it is fuel to
> that same stove. There is no other practical way to communicate to people the
> amount of fuel a stove requires to be harvested and provided each day.
>
> In China they have a test that runs for a month. A stove is installed and
> cooked upon each day for a month. The amount of fuel it consumes during that
> month is calculated. Then they know what the fuel consumption really is. If
> there is a huge pile of char left afterwards, they do not consider that an
> ‘efficiency’. I can’t say I am surprised.
>
> If you are in the char making business, you still have to consider how many
> cubic metres of trees are needed each day. That is the raw fuel consumption
> of the char making kiln. The char produced is not a raw fuel efficiency, it
> is the output efficiency of the char making process. No problem.
>
> We both owe a duty of care to the people buying and promoting stoves to
> correctly report the amount of biomass that is needed to fuel the stove per
> cycle or per day or per month.
>
> 2. Under a) - I repeat my original claim - you have no test in mind that
> will differentiate between char-making stoves. If char is there, it has not
> been "consumed".
>
> Well you can read the above again if you like. If there is char remaining
> that is not fuel for the stove from which it came, it comes from fuel which
> the stove consumed. Word it as you like. I thought you would be asking for a
> report on the char production efficiency with a rating on the energy content
> per kg and the % volatiles. That would make sense if you wanted to sell it
> for income. I am hoping to do exactly that in an area of Indonesia where
> there are many candle nut shells. It makes really good charcoal fuel when
> burned in a TLUD which people can sell for income.
>
> When assessing the fuel consumption of the TLUD that makes that char, we will
> get the mass of fuel consumed per cycle, the energy content and rate it
> accordingly. Another stove that burns the same fuel and cooks the same amount
> and produces no char will consume a lot less raw material. All we are doing
> is reporting how much the stove consume per cycle.
>
> 3. Under b) - The key sentences are your final two: The direct cause is
> that the more char produced, the less fuel was claimed to have been consumed,
> which is clearly untrue. That is why the WBT was changed." If char
> exists, the claim of less fuel is "clearly true", not "clearly untrue".
>
> My claim is related to the amount of raw biomass needed to be put into the
> stove each time it is used. Your claim is to view the char remaining as fuel.
> This may or may not be true for a particular stove. If that char is fuel for
> a that stove, then the char can be credited as unburned fuel. The point is to
> tell the prospective buyer what the raw fuel consumption is.
>
> Further, the use of the formula A/(B-C) goes back at least to VITA days and
> is in there today. On this main point under dispute, the WBT was NOT
> changed (thank goodness). Or if I am wrong, please give a cite.
>
> Yes it does go back that far and it has been misleading people ever since it
> was introduced. It was written on the basis that the desired measurement was
> not the raw fuel consumed each cycle, but the efficiency with which the heat
> was developed in the fire and transferred to the pot. That is why it was
> called (in those tests) the ‘heat transfer efficiency’. It isn’t really the
> heat transfer efficiency, but it was given that name. The heat transfer
> efficiency is a useful number for stove designers. When making changes like
> pot to stove clearance the number will change. But it is not and never was
> the fuel consumption figure, even for the fry fuel consumption, because the
> consumption depends on what happens to the fuel remaining. If it is long
> sticks that can be burned tomorrow, fine, it is unburned fuel. Char? Fine, if
> it too can be burned as fuel. If it is not usable, it is not fuel. Same as
> ash as far as that stove is concerned.
>
> The WBT was changed and that was the major point of Jim’s recent webinar to
> which you posed a number of questions and which he answered repeatedly. I am
> again answering that same question. The fuel consumption considers whether or
> not the remaining fuel is fuel for that same stove. If it is not, it shall be
> considered consumed.
>
> End of short story. Take it up with Jim if you do not agree with this reality.
>
> 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/
