[Stoves] change heading - stove tests

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Frank

>Measurement one: What you get with a long continuous run is a good
representation of >emissions during the run. You do not get this with short
runs. 

I agree it is not the same. What we are finding is that emissions vary
greatly during the test and that a long test with careful operation
(including refuelling) tells you nothing in 24 hours that you can't get in
6.

>Measurement two: But, as you say, the start and end of the runs are also
important. 
>As that happens in a short span of time we need many Start / Stop events so
to get an average. 

Averages are good for reducing the variation between readings in identical
tests. As James Robinson points out, if you do a test once and record it,
then do it again and get the same result, what is the point of repeating the
test again? Why not do something else and get a different, meaningful
measurement. That is at the core of a heterogeneous test. We need a
performance curve, not a multiple repetition of one thing. When you test a
car for mileage you vary the tasks (city and highway) to get a picture of
overall performance. You don't drive the city route three times and average
them.

>We need to not try to be careful (that doesn't happen the real world) but
we need to stir the fuel when adding and try to get the maximum emissions
possible the stove can produce.  

Hmm....well that is an experiment that one could try, but it would not
appear on the recommended operations list for some stoves. Some stoves are
refuelled by adding it  to the hopper. Now you see that there are actually
three things involved: fuel+stove+method of operation.

We have shown that there are savings possible of 25% on fuel and 80% on
emissions simply by changing the way the stove is operated. Any
international test protocol that fixes the method of operation dooms the
populace to only having stove that work well using that test method. Imagine
if that happened before the development of pellet stoves! Pellet stoves
would never have been allowed because you can't put 4 inch oak into them!


>I suggest, designing a  stove -fuel combination that produces the lowest
maximum emission possible  (along with efficiency -measure three) should be
the goal when comparing stoves.

Agreed, as will many others.

>After reading the rest I see we agree with each other. But I also want to
add the importance of the fuel type and characteristics can not be ignored.

Agreed again. In combination, they are part of what happens.

Start Runs (emission)
Long runs (emission)
Ending (emission)
Thermal efficiency
Fuel characteristic range.

My list would be:

Starting emissions and efficiency
Running emissions and efficiency
High power emissions and efficiency
Refuelling emissions and efficiency
Low power emissions and efficiency
Dying fire emissions and efficiency

Not terribly different.

Regards
Crispin