Crispin cc stoves
Fine.
Ron
On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear Ron
>
>
> We'll at least this time you are not putting words in my mouth, you are just
> misunderstanding what I write and as far as I see, deliberately so.
>
> If you have no more questions I will be happy to move on.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> >>Q10>>>
> From: Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:47
> To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of biomass
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test char-making stoves
> (attn:
> GACC testers)
>
> 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/
