Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronal W. Larson
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way totest char-making stoves(attn:
GACC testers)
Paul and "stoves":
I would add that it is very important also that all stoves (not just
char-making stoves) be rated on their production of char.
# Why do you feel that ALL stoves should be forced to pay for the extra
expense of the testing associated with the determination of the energy loss to
the char? It is reasonable to require that stoves intended to produce char be
tested for their char producing capability, but it does not make sense to
require "Full Combustion Stoves" to be tested for char.
The rating should be in kilos, percentages and energy terms. I guess (not
sure) that "fuel" means kg and its %; energy means joules and its %.
Fortunately these are all being given now by EPA and (I think) GACC. Some wish
to call anything related to char as non-existent (consumed) - which makes no
sense to me. I am not changing your response to Kevin - only making sure that
the emphasis in this discussion be on the words "char-production" in your last
sentence.
Until we have a better alternative to the words " minus the energy
remaining in the char" - we are stuck with it - although that approach
undervalues the char.
This is the same answer I give to Kevin who wrote earlier today, with his
and my emphasis on the word "minus":
# It seems to me that there are two fundamentally different "Stove Systems":
1: Those that are of a design intended to minimize the requirement for fuel
input
and
2: Those that are of a design intended to produce char, for other desirable
purposes.
# It thus follows that there should be two test procedures to enable
comparison of stoves within each class. Inherently a "Full Combustion Stove"
will have less fuel consumption than a stove that inherently loses a
significant portion of teh fuel energy as char.
# If the "Class 1 Stoves were tested for "Fuel Efficiency", and teh "Class 2"
stoves were tested for both fuel efficiency and the fuel energy remaining in
the char, then stoves in each class could be rated on their intended
performance. Additionally, however, the fuel efficiency of both classes could
be compared, so that a Stove Buyer would know how much more fuel he would have
to purchase for a heating/cooking task, and also, how much residual char he
could expect. It strikes me as pointless and unfair to require a Class 1 Stove
manufacturer to do a char test, when his stove is producing little or no char.
Best wishes,
Kevin
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
On Oct 24, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Paul Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
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.comOn 10/24/2013 11:00 AM, Kevin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
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
To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ; Discussion of biomass
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] 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/
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
