[Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sun Feb 15 21:30:18 CST 2015
Kirk,
Your comment contains one incorrect statement:
> The stove which gets more transfer of the heat into the pot may cause
> more steam if it cannot turn down to a lower power level than the
> lesser stove, but that means that the two simmering temperatures are
> different.
Essentially there is only one simmering temperature that is allowed,
which is to be never more than 6 deg C lower than the boiling point.
If local boiling point is 100 C, then never less than 94 C, and probably
best to keep the temperature of the water at about 97 C.
But even a roaring fire cannot raise the temperature above the boiling
point. So the difference in the TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER is of little
consequence, being about 3 deg C. And remember that _the purpose or
objective of simmering_ is to maintain the temperature. The purpose is
NOT to minimize the amount of evaporated water, which is only a poor
reflection of how much fuel is used.
Please also see my next message, that is addressed to Phillip and Dean
who have exchanged messages recently.
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 2/15/2015 6:41 PM, kgharris wrote:
> All,
> I am not understanding why the WBT is invalid if the simmer
> temperature is held the same for all stoves. The stove which gets
> more transfer of the heat into the pot may cause more steam if it
> cannot turn down to a lower power level than the lesser stove, but
> that means that the two simmering temperatures are different. Dean is
> talking about the test simmering temperature being the same for all
> stoves. The stove that gets more heat transfer into the pot will need
> more turn-down than the lesser stove in order to simmer at
> the pre-choosen test temperature. That is the whole reason for
> improving the heat transfer into the food. To be able to use lower
> power levels, less fuel, and fewer emmissions to cook with. The two
> capabilities need to evolve together, and both are improvements which
> can enhance a good field usable stove. Also simplicity of
> construction and ease of use are important qualities which need
> consideration and perhaps some kind of metrics for measurements.
> Kirk Harris
> Santa Rosa, CA. USA
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dean Still <mailto:deankstill at gmail.com>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency
> Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
>
> Dear Philip,
>
> The Low Power test works well when the fuel use is normalized
> using a set simmering temperature.
>
> Sam and I are writing up some characteristics of the WBT and I'll
> post the paper here. Lots of work to do and I look forward to our
> continued collaboration.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za
> <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>> wrote:
>
> Dear Dean
>
> Crispin said it well:
> “The three low power metrics are invalid. The variables
> selected are inappropriately chosen. The calculated results
> are misleading and contrary to any claim [that] they provide
> guidance for product development or selection. We have to move
> on.”
>
> I have looked at the simmering metrics in WBT 4.3.2 and can
> only concur. That is why I do not think we should waste much
> more time arguing about them – they are fundamentally wrong.
> Yes, stove designers need to be concerned with simmering and
> turndown; no, the WBT simmering metrics do not provide them
> with guidance, and can be positively misleading, which is worse.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Philip Lloyd
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf
> Of *Dean Still
> *Sent:* 15 February 2015 06:38
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer
> efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
>
> Dear Prof Loyd,
>
> As I pointed out, when the stoves do the same work (hold the
> water at 97 C, for example) the stove with greater heat
> transfer efficiency scores better. Simmering tests are
> important and simmering is an important part of cooking.
>
> The ISO process is creating new history and approaches to old
> problems. Whatever emerges will certainly be defensible as the
> new approaches are forged by consensus.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Philip Lloyd
> <plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>> wrote:
>
> I am concerned that this is turning into a very fruitless
> discussion.
>
> On fundamental grounds the simmering test does not provide
> anything meaningful. Crispin has demonstrated that rigorously,
> and others have pointed out that the test can score an
> efficient stove poorly and an inefficient stove well, so it
> does not provide any useful measure. To go on defending the
> indefensible does not make sense, even if it did accentuate
> the need for turndown – but that need was always there, it was
> not the product of the WBT.
>
> We need defensible measures of stove performance. Can we
> please turn our attention to developing those, and leave the
> indefensible to history?
>
> Prof Philip Lloyd
>
> Energy Institute
>
> Cape Peninsula University of Technology
>
> PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000
>
> Tel:021 460 4216
>
> Fax:021 460 3828
>
> Cell: 083 441 5247
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf
> Of *Paul Anderson
> *Sent:* 15 February 2015 02:26
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer
> efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
>
> Dear Dean, my reply is below:
>
> 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 <tel:%2B1-309-452-7072>
>
> Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
> On 2/14/2015 1:06 PM, Dean Still wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> To do well on the Low Power Specific Consumption metrics
> the stove has to have a good Turn Down Ratio. In other
> words, the stove has to have high power and low power.
>
> I totally agree with this. But it is not the whole story of
> LPSC. Other factors influence LPSC, especially concerning
> the measurement of the variables that are used to make the
> calculation. These can include the insulation of the pot
> (incl. skirts), lid on pot, pot characteristics such as size,
> quantity of water in the pot at the start, and at the finish.
>
> Specific Consumption is based on how much energy was used to
> create simmered water.
>
> Simmered water is not created. It was already hot at the
> start of the simmer phase of testing. We are interested in how
> much energy is used to MAINTAIN the required temperature near
> boiling, but preferable about 3 degrees C lower than that
> boiling temperature. In fact, a super-insulative pot could
> need barely a flicker of a flame, and therefore even a well
> turned-down stove could cause the water to boil and evaporate.
>
> If the stove only operates at high power there is more steam
> made and [at the end of testing] less simmered water remains....
>
> that is true. but continue.
>
> ..... so energy was used to create less product.
>
> Stove simmering is not creating a product. It is maintaining
> a temperature. The steam that is driven off does not
> represent loss of "product" which should be understood to be
> "cooked food" (and not meaning water that can be added to the
> pot by any attentive cook in a household.)
>
> I like Specific Consumption because it forces stove designers
> to make stoves that simmer successfully, not just boil water.
>
> I agree. But the measurement procedures need to accurately
> document the ability to have that strong turn-down ratio,
> without calculations that can yield ambiguous or mis-leading
> results.
>
> For example, new TLUDs are better stoves because they have
> both high power and low power. In my opinion, the WBT 4.2.3
> helped to create these more successful TLUDs.
>
> The cause-and-effect relationship is not totally clear. We
> have wanted turn-down capabilities in TLUDs for many years.
>
> As Sam says, we are working on a paper showing characteristics
> of the WBT 4.2.3 for the ISO work. Knowing the characteristics
> lets folks evolve a perfect test.
>
> I question the above wording to "evolve a perfect test" (which
> is a test run, not the test procedures.) Maybe the statement
> should be that "knowing the characteristics let's folks
> operate their stoves in special ways to obtain superior
> results that are not realistic for average users." OR "...
> let's folks 'game the metrics' to present 'perfected'
> test-results BASED ON OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND NOT ON
> IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STOVES THEMSELVES."
>
> OR it could be that flawed protocols /procedures (such as
> dividing by the volume of remaining water after simmering) can
> yield numerical results that are questionable and perhaps
> disadvantageous to the development of clean cookstoves.
>
> Sam is doing great work as he crunches all the data....
>
> absolutely. But we are questioning if the numbers are as
> valid and useful as claimed.
>
> and gives ISO real numbers to work with in their discussions.
>
>
> Concluding statement: The topic of Low Power Specific
> Consumption is too important to just brush aside the stated
> issues. More "expert testimony" would be useful, including a
> mathematical analysis of the impact of the parts of the
> calculations.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paul Anderson
> <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
> Dear Tom H., and to all who are interested in proper
> testing of stoves.
>
> Your reply about your experiences is helpful. Sounds like
> you had qualified testing center do the testing, in accordance
> with the procedures that Crispin is questioning. Please send
> to me the full details. Could be off-list, but this is
> sufficiently important that we will want the full results known.
>
> I have a specific case of official testing of one of my stoves
> with unfavorable results for Low-Heat Efficiency
> (simmering). I will add that into the list of examples and
> provide the details very soon.
>
> I invite anyone else who has something to report about
> simmering efficiency to also send details of their
> experiences, either favorable or unfavorable or neutral.
>
> The examination of the questionable methods about simmer
> efficiency might take some days, maybe weeks. But not the
> months or years that this debate has been "simmering".
>
> Remember: A testing center that properly conducts testing
> using an endorsed but possibly flawed procedure is NOT a
> culprit. The culprit is the testing protocols, _IF found to
> be faulty. _And we hope that the testing center people
> (employees and leaders) who understand the technical aspects
> of the calculations will be among those who can help resolve
> these serious issues.
>
> Even those who developed protocols that are eventually shown
> to be faulty are not culprits. Mistakes can be made.
> However, the culprits can include those who advocate a
> protocol that he or she knows (or reasonably suspects) to be
> faulty.
>
> 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 <tel:%2B1-309-452-7072>
>
> Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> 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/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4284/9121 - Release Date:
> 02/15/15
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150215/8318c95b/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list