[Stoves] A review of chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward

[Ronal W. Larson]

Crispin and lists (some added)

	Yours is a perfect example of my complaint.    

	Apparently you believe that the inefficiency of this stove  (which I would call a wonderful stove) is 1- .334 = .666 (66.6%).   I disagree- that is not the inefficiency.  If you have a different perception of the word “inefficiency” - what is it?  Please give your view on inefficiency (NOT efficiency) for this specific example - which is amazingly close to the example I gave to start this thread (almost 30% char!!)

	I sure wish you had supplied a cite, so I could look further into the testing.  I have no way of knowing from this test anything about the char - which this stove was clearly trying to produce.  Jim Jetter does enough post testing to give us that number.  One might assume you don’t know, since it is not given (and would be of considerable interest to anyone buying this stove.  But to get your 12.81 MJ/kg (four significant figures !!) in the fuel consumed, you must have the char energy content to the same accuracy.

	I also have to question the computations.  How can I find how you got the numbers of 12.81 MJ/kg.  Do you really believe you know that to 4 significant figures? What was the fuel moisture content and how recently measured?

	Why is 2.1 kW a “Fail”?  Sounds pretty good to me.   Is this due to the same reasoning that causes a CSI rating of only two stars?  Would the EPA methodology give this two stars?

	Whew!  I still have to “commend” you for trying so hard to convince the world that biochar and char-making stoves make no sense.  But your commenting on the word “inefficiency” for this particular stove would still be helpful to a few of us.  And letting us know who did this testing - and where to read about the procedures.


Ron 




> On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:25 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
>  
> In case you are under the impression that people are not reporting the mass of char produced, here is a sample of a stove test using the CSI method.
>  
> Regards
> Crispin
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> Art and ccs
>  
>               Another message from you a little later said you would be creating (I think) a place to archive this series on how to report on TLUDs in a consistent and helpful way.  Thanks for that.
>  
>> [snip]
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151126/4bf34f02/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151126/4bf34f02/attachment.jpg>