[Stoves] Fw: Shields E450c as a way to test char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Thu Oct 24 15:47:57 CDT 2013
Kevin,
When ALL of the fuel is consumed, then the fuel usage has a known energy
usage. No need to do additional calculations.
And as Crispin and others have pointed out, efficiency is measured in
energy units, not in kg of wood or liters of liquid fuels.
Simply report efficiencies in terms of both fuel usage and energy usage
for all stoves.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 10/24/2013 12:20 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Dear Paul
> People do not buy, or collect, or prepare ENERGY for a stove... they
> buy, or collect, or prepare FUEL
> The input to a stove is FUEL, not ENERGY
> Lanny Henson has a very simple "Efficiency Test"... he weighs his fuel
> beforehand, cooks up a batch of Pinto Beans, and then reports the
> results as "Grams of Fuel per batch of Pinto Beans." Or as Grams of
> Fuel per serving of Pinto Beans.
> This is about as simple and elegant and meaningful and repeatable and
> foolproof a test as one could wish for.
> EVERY stove should be measured in some manner for FUEL Utilization
> Efficiency. SOME stoves should also be tested for ENERGY Efficiency.
> It adds un-necessary cost to the Stove Testing Procedure, to require
> that ALL stoves be tested for BOTH FUEL and ENERGY efficiency when
> only SOME stoves need to be tested for ENERGY Efficiency.
> What would you think about the following proposal for "stove testing
> rules"?
> 1: Stove Manufacturers shall state whether their stove is a "full
> burning stove" or a "char producing stove.
> 2: "Full burning stoves" shall have a "Fuel Efficiency Test."
> 3: "Char producing stoves" shall have BOTH a "Fuel Efficiency Test",
> and an "Energy Efficiency Test."
> Does that sound practical, fair and reasonable to you?
> Best wishes,
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Anderson <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:13 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Fw: Shields E450c as a way to test
> char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)
>
> 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:psanders at ilstu.edu
> 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:kchisholm-inter at uniserve.com>
>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> *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:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
>> *To:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>> <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com> ; Discussion of biomass
>> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> *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, crispinpigott at gmail.com
>> <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com> 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"
>>> <crispinpigott at gmail.com <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com>>
>>> 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
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> 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
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20131024/07fd2d2f/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list