[Stoves] Fwd: Moisture Paper

[Ronal W. Larson]

List     (cc Yibo)

	The attachment should be of interest to quite a few on this list.   I hope you will react to my following comments  back to Yibo/Jackie - about to start a new graduate school stint in the USA.   Yibo and I interacted in Beijing last year for a few days - but this is the first time I have had to look closely at all the results.  I now consider this issue of moisture content to be more important than I did earlier.


Yibo:
	Sorry for the delay in responding.  Been busy.

	I was surprised with some of the results.  I believe that at least some of the results are due to equations 1 and 2 being different from many.  Not wrong, just different. I would like to see graphs, where the MC is NOT subtracted in the denominator.   I don’t really like the subtraction of the char energy either in Eq. 2 - but it is much preferred over Eq. 1.   My preference is to report separately on the three quantities separately - for energy to the pot (desired), to water evaporation from the fuel (no value to anyone), and to energy in the char (valuable to some of us).

	As shown, it appears in Figures 3a and 3b to be preferable to have high MC.  This is counter-intuitive - and I believe is due to the form of Eqs. 1 and 2.  If you would be so good as to forward the raw data and your Excel spread sheet,  I am anxious to see how different efficiency definitions change the result.  Also,  I need to check how you calculated the energy effect of MC, and to know what LHV you used for your char.

	It is less obvious to me how to explain the results in Fig. 5.  I think it is because the power levels were significantly modified by MC.  Many have reported emissions increases at higher power levels (more primary air).   It would be interesting to see the same curves with similar power levels.  That is not possible without new testing.

	Figure 4 was not a surprise for the wet weight basis, but I am surprised that there was no drop off in the char weight on a dry basis  (cross-hatched).  Again, I think there is a power level (airflow) issue here.  That will take a lot of work - I presume you had no control over either primary or secondary air?

	Congratulations on getting this paper published.  It is important.

	I strongly support your main conclusion on the need for testing at different (perhaps standard?) MC levels.

Ron



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Huangfu Yibo" <hfyblx at 163.com>
> Subject: Re:Re: Moisture Paper
> Date: July 1, 2014 at 8:07:18 PM MDT
> To: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> 
> 
> Dear Professor,
> 
> I booked the ticket on Aug. 11th. from Beijing to Pullman. I have been the new ARC lab for one time, which is quite a big place far away from the town, near a small river and in the forest. 
> 
> Of course you can send it to the stovelist, and I am looking forward to the comments, too ^_^
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Yibo
> 
> At 2014-07-02 09:19:42, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> Yibo  - see below
	<snip non pertinent exchanges>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140707/778b509c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Effects of moisture content in fuel on thermal performance and emission of biomass semi-gasified cookstoves.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 968129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140707/778b509c/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140707/778b509c/attachment-0001.html>