Kevin and all,
All stoves should be rated on ENERGY consumption as well as FUEL
consumption. That is not too much to expect. And would alert the
readers of the test reports to the difference that char-production
accomplishes in some stoves.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: [email protected]
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 10/24/2013 11:00 AM, Kevin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Kevin <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:42 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test char-making
stoves(attn: GACC testers)
Dear Ron
Do you believe that wood burning stoves will be rated for fuel
consumption, but that "char making stoves" will be rated for
fuel consumption minus the energy remaining in the char?
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ronal W. Larson <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <mailto:[email protected]> ;
Discussion of biomass <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:16 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test char-making
stoves(attn: GACC testers)
Crispin cc stoves
Fine.
Ron
On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:10 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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/
_______________________________________________
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/
