[Stoves] The need to continue the discussion: simmer efficiency

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Thu Feb 19 15:06:39 CST 2015


Dear Jiddu, and to all who share the concerns about errors in testing of 
stoves.

Your comments are greatly appreciated.   Well said.   As we make 
progress on these topics, the comments will be continually refined for 
clarity of expression, and will be the composite work of too many people 
to be individually named.   Thank you.

To know of your credentials as a theoretical physicist is appreciated.   
There could be people with credentials on both or all sides of the 
discussion.   But you can talk to other physicists much better than I 
can.   In debates (and courtrooms) both sides like to have their expert 
witnesses.   Thanks for stepping forward.

I especially like your comment that shows your convictions:
> I find myself in the position where I have to tell my company to 
> produce stoves with lower rating because it will be better for women 
> that we build them for.
That is worth re-reading and repeating!!!

As I get further into this topic, I am realizing that invalid metrics 
must be STOPPED.  I do not yet know how much they have hurt various 
stove designs, but I can see no way that such metrics have been of any 
positive value.  ------

-----   Oh, and if some stoves are benefited by such inaccurate metrics, 
and if the manufacturers know that they have made claims based on faulty 
testing, THAT would be truly reprehensible.

It is fast becoming (in my opinion) the time when the defenders of the 
status quo about the three Low Power measurements in the WBT will need 
to speak up with some quite convincing arguments.

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 2/19/2015 1:56 AM, Jiddu Broersma wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> First,
> Paul, thank you for keeping the conversation going with great 
> intentions. Much appreciated.
>
> I have been a quiet follower of the stovelist and I just caught up on 
> the simmering discussion. I believe it is a necessary discussion.
>
> I would like to share my opinion. It is one from the perspective of a 
> stove manufacturer and a theoretical physicist.
> I do this purely to contribute to the discussion. Although I will 
> formulate my opinion direct with strong language, I want to assure you 
> all that I value everyone's opinion equally.
> Now, I will jump straight into the low power metrics.
>
> *Simmering*
> As has been explained, simmering is a 'zero work' task, it does not 
> have an efficiency. Evaporating water and overcoming heat losses 
> require work, they can have an efficiency. However, is anyone 
> interested in knowing the efficiency of evaporating water? Or is 
> anyone calculating how much energy is lost from the pot?
>
> Either way, simmering is only a term that we will hopefully agree on. 
> Most important is to understand the meaning of the metrics that are 
> calculated: Low power specific fuel consumption, Low power CO and Low 
> power PM.
>
> *Low Power Specific Fuel Consumption*
> From the WBT sheet I find that (equation)
> Low power specific fuel consumption = (weight fuel consumed * 
> calorific value of fuel ) / (weight of water remaining * minutes of 
> simmering * 1000)
> To explain in steps:
>
>  1. Weight of fuel consumed divided by minutes simmering is the burn rate.
>  2. If we multiply this by calorific value we get the energy released
>     by the combustion per minute. Let's call this the 'energy rate'.
>  3. If we divide this weight of water remaining we just divide it by a
>     random number that has no meaning. Keeping more food/water hot
>     does not require more energy. (I believe it does the contrary,
>     because volume grows faster than surface when you increase quantities)
>
> -> We have the energy released by the combustion divided by a random 
> number.
>
> If we wish to calculate some kind of efficiency number we require 
> useful energy (into pot) divided by used energy (from combustion). 
> What we have calculated is nothing close to this.
>
> We could possibly calculate the energy into evaporation and heat loss 
> from the pot, but we have no interest in this.
> Hence, a simmering task can't give us a useful efficiency type of number!
>
> That was me as a physicist, as a employee of a manufacturer I am 
> concerned that stoves are unfairly compared. Because the system can be 
> manipulated to gain better results by using a pot with larger volume 
> capacity and higher insulating properties.
> Also another big issue is that more efficient stoves can have lower 
> rating at the same power output. I'll explain by example (as others 
> have done before me):
> /Two stoves are equal except that one has better heat transfer 
> efficiency. When they both run at the lowest power possible (which is 
> the same power for both), the one with the better heat transfer 
> efficiency will have likely evaporated more water because more energy 
> went into the pot. Do to more evaporation it will end up with a rating 
> that is worse!/
>
> *Low power Emissions*
> Both PM and CO are given in
> weight  / (minute * liters of water)
>
> Similar breakdown:
> Weight of emissions per minute is straightforward.
> Dividing this by number of liters in the pot is simply dividing the 
> emissions by a number of your choice (the liters you fill in the pot). 
> It has no value to stove rating.
>
> Generally I think that weight of emissions per minute is not a bad 
> metric. However, simmering is not a task that can be compared fairly 
> between two stoves because it is not a specific task! If we can't 
> compare the way two stoves simmer because we know nothing about the 
> useful energy that went into the pot we are not allowed to compare the 
> results because it means nothing without enough information.
>
> *Wrap-up*
> The list of complications that result from these invalid simmering 
> metrics goes on. Please read again Crispin's and Philip Lloyd's 
> comments for a more comprehensive list.
>
> Worst is that many manufacturers are optimizing their products using 
> the WBT and that stoves are not actually improving in the field. The 
> WBT can result into the production of bad stoves for millions of 
> already suffering women!
> I find myself in the position where I have to tell my company to 
> produce stoves with lower rating because it will be better for women 
> that we build them for.
>
> It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of how we 
> stimulate the production of stoves that are really improving lives.
> My opinion is that we need to review the meaning of metrics at 
> fundamental level. (Ie. Boiling and simmering are not scientific ways 
> of describing a state of cooking for stoves).
>
> Due to the differences in opinion in the stove world, I believe an 
> external review (scientific: engineers, physicists, mathematicians) 
> would be the most suitable option. The review could simply explain the 
> physical meaning of all calculated results.
>
> Best regards,
> Jiddu
>
> *Jiddu Broersma*
> *Technology and Organization Officer*
>
>
> www.praktidesign.com <http://www.praktidesign.com/>
>
> Spirit Sense, Old Auroville Road
> Bommiyarpalayam
> 605104 Tamil Nadu
> INDIA
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.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/20150219/781023b6/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list