[Stoves] Shields E450c as a way totest char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Fri Oct 25 09:11:23 CDT 2013
List: CC Kevin
I presume Kevin wanted this to go to the full list.
Ron
On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> Dear Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronal W. Larson
> To: Kevin ; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way totest char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)
>
> Kevin and list
>
> There are many reasons for one test procedure rather than two:
>
> All stoves can produce char. It depends on when and how you stop their operation.
>
> # Where fuel economy is important, then stoves would be run in a manner to minimize char production.
>
> I have participated in a lot of stove testing - and users have always saved their char.
>
> # I would suggest that the stove tests that you have participated in were structured so that reported results were better when the char was recovered and its energy content was deducted from the input fuel. Recovery of char from ash is a dirty, unpleasant job, and only desperate people would recover char from ash for re-burning. A "Full Combustion Stove" test could include screening of ash for capture and weighing of char, to show how little was produced, as a percentage of fuel input. A "low percentage of char production" would be a great selling point for Stove Buyers wanting to maximize fuel economy.
>
> Char has value, no matter how little is made.
>
> # That is true only if the char is put to a use where its value is returned to the Fuel Buyer. A dollar bill has value only if it is exchanged for goods or services... it has no value if it is torn up and tossed to the winds.
>
> If there is zero char, then there is no extra cost.
>
> # That is true also, but if, as you say above, "...all stoves can produce char..." then all stoves could be burdened with the extra cost of detrermination of the energy content of the char produced. A "Full Combustion Stove" that produced say 1/2% of fuel input weight as char would be required to do the "char energy content test", the same as a TLUD producing say 30% char. That makes no sense.
>
> You will not be able to compare between tests using the present protocol unless you know the amount of char produced.
> There are decades of tests with char production records. You will lose the ability to compare progress if you stop measuring char.
>
> # The Proposed Testing Protocols are based on science and clarity, and are intended to remove the confusion, inaccuricies, and misdirection assocated with past testing protocols. Comparing "accurate test results" with "inaccurate test results" serves no useful purpose.
>
> Some char-making stoves are more efficient (less annual input material) than many that have no intended production.
>
> # True.
>
> You need the charcoal amount to show that.
>
> # No, you don't. Just measure fuel input required to accomplish a given "stove task." That alone will tell you what stove is more "Fuel Efficient."
>
> Many experts have Ok'd the existing tests.
>
> # The existing tests have served a purpose in the past. Now, however, the short-comings and inaccuracies of previous tests are recognized, and are in the process of being corrected.
>
> Changing the procedures will cost time and money.
>
> # True. However, clear and accurate test results will save the Funding Agencies and Individual Stove Customers huge amounts of money in the future by enabling the Purchaser to select stoves that are best suited for their intended purposes.
>
> Every stove manufacturer should want the charcoal included - including char makes the efficiency numbers look better (not as good it could/should, but better).
>
> # This is perhaps a significant part of the problems with the present stove testing procedures... they were configured by Stove Manufacturers, to make their stoves look good. Testing protocols are dishonest, if they are constructed "... to make the efficiency numbers look better..." The Proposed test protocols are constructed around science, truth, and clarity.
>
> Those arguing for a change have given no good reason for that change other than saving a small dollar amount.
>
> # One very good reason for changing the present stove testing protocols is that the proposed stove testing procedures will enable Stove Customers to purchase stoves that are best suited to accomplishing their targets or goals. Others who know more about Stoves than I do can give many other good reasons for improving the Stove Testing Protocol.
>
> Much present stove testing is free to the manufacturer - and they will/should learn a lot from knowing how much energy is in the char - if they desire to get rid of it.
>
> # If someone is attempting to build a Fuel Efficient Stove, and if they see significant char in the ashpit, they don't need tests to tell them that they are doing something significantly wrong.
> "Char in Ash Pit = Back to Drawing Board."
> On the other hand, the designer of a "Char Making Stove" will indeed find tests on char production and energy content very important. However, it is unfair to burden a Fuel Efficient Stove manufacturer with the requirement to test the char, when he already knows that char production will cut into the Fuel Efficiency Rating for his stove.
>
> There are probably more; this list is not intended to be exhaustive.
>
> # I find that:
> 1: your above points do not justify retaining present Stove Testing Protocols
> 2: it is unfair and un-necessary to burden "Full Combustion Stove Manufacturers" with the cost of testing charcoal for its energy content.
> 3: that the proposed Stove Testing Protocols will be much more helpful to the Stove Buyer, and will greatly help the Stove Buyer select a stove that best meets his wants and needs.
>
> # If you have otrher reasons for wanting to stay with teh present Stove Testing Protocols, please present them for consideration.
>
> Kevin
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 <psanders at ilstu.edu> 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: 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
>>>> 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, 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> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131025/5c1e43c5/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list