[Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.

[Paul Anderson]

Ron, Crispin, Jim and all,

One stumbling point is the difference between the words    Fuel and    
Energy.    We cook with fuels.   We cook with energy.   But a piece (1 
kg) of wood (fuel) can deliver 16 MJ of energy if burned to ash or it 
can deliver (example) 11 MJ of energy PLUS charcoal that represents 5 MJ 
of energy.

The piece of wood is totally changed in both cases.   But in the second 
case, part of that wood has been transformed into charcoal, which is 
certainly not wood.    Wood consumed is 1 kg.   Energy consumed is 11 MJ 
(with charcoal left over).   Two very different results to be reported.

And then there is the case of one kg of agricultural "refuse" that is 16 
MJ if consumed totally, or 11 MJ plus charcoal if pyrolyzed, and in 
NEITHER case was there any consumption of wood.   Where deforestation is 
an issue, stoves that can use (easily use) agricultural refuse need to 
be distinguished from the wood burners.

Even when the stove testing is conducted with wood as the standard fuel, 
the test RESULTS need to clearly reveal that wood did NOT need to be burned.

In the movies, "No animals were harmed in the production of this film."
For SOME cookstoves, "No wood was burned in the cooking of these meals 
(or the conducting of these tests)."

What happens to the charcoal (whether burned or as biochar or otherwise 
lost) should not be the issue.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 4/22/2013 6:13 PM, rongretlarson at comcast.net wrote:
> Crispin, Jim,   and List
>
> See few comments below
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *
> *To: *"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" 
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, April 22, 2013 8:47:51 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data 
> of        cookstove        tests.
>
> Dear Jim and Anyone watching
>
> I won't have time to dig through the messages on this thread that were 
> in limbo. If something is really important to someone, ask again.
>
> With regard to the char remaining and the wood that has been burned on 
> one end (fuel left over from tests) Harold Annegarn and I have a 
> proposal for how to deal with stoves that can use fuel remaining from 
> a previous burn. In principle, the test should be started with the 
> fuel left over from a previous test. In other words a cooking task 
> that is replicated a number of times in which the fuel left over goes 
> into the stove for the subsequent task provides an opportunity to 
> measure (quite accurately) the raw fuel drawn from the pile.
>
> *[RWL1:    I suggest that any test has to account for stoves being 
> used to BOTH cook AND make char*.  I don't sense you will concur with 
> this variation.*  Or can you?*
>
> *    I believe that forcing the reuse of char in many/most char-making 
> stoves will not be the way the char will normally be used - and 
> therefore will give erroneous results.*
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130423/cd9d03ca/attachment.html>