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

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Thu Nov 26 11:03:37 CST 2015


Dear all,

The Subject is Efficiency, Inefficiency, or maybe "Losses".    But I 
will not change the Subject line.   I am trying to understand the 
discussion.   My comments below might need some refinements.

It appears that there are too many problems and differing 
interpretations to be discussing "efficiency."   So we are looking at 
decreasing the INefficiencies.    Said differently,  if the resultant 
characteristic is useful, it is not a loss.

Therefore, if a stove makes char and if that char is considered useful, 
it should be counted as "good" and not as a loss.

Therefore, char that is saved for later burning OR char that is saved 
for placement into soil as biochar can be considered as purposeful and 
with value and with merit.   We are not trying to attach some value to 
that char, because the value could be measured as energy, "raw fuel 
consumed", monetary $ value, or even food-productivity for the coming 
growing season (1) or seasons (2 through 10 or many more).   Those 
values cannot be equated unless some specific situation / location / 
condition is selected, which would be biased against other possible 
situations / conditions.

So, if a stove makes 20% char (by weight), that should be considered 
favorably.   But that 20% by weight is about 30% of the energy content 
of the original biomass.  But zero % of the original biomass remains in 
its original biomass form.  I do not know which number should be used.

Hmmmmmm.   I am not sure that discussing inefficiency is going to 
resolve the fundamental differences in the points of view others are 
expressing.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to the American readers.   To the rest of you, 
have a nice work day!!!

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 11/26/2015 9:10 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>>
>> 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/20151126/8f069743/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151126/8f069743/attachment.jpe>


More information about the Stoves mailing list