[Stoves] Fw: Shields E450c as a way to test char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)

Thu Oct 24 16:09:09 CDT 2013

Dear Paul

How to we ensure the 'energy efficiency' number is not misused as a 'fuel
consumption' number? Historically the energy number has been turned into a
'dry fuel equivalent' and many people think that means the dry mass of fuel
consumed to perform the test.

This is a serious matter. Perhaps we should agree on some definitions that
are clear an hard to misuse or misunderstand.

Thanks
Crispin

++++++++

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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>    
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>    
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/f826e956/attachment.html>