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

Thu Nov 26 12:16:16 CST 2015

Dear Paul, Ron, Stovers,

Efficiencies requires two values: amount IN vs amount OUT. When I talked of 100% efficiency I was referring to 100% of the IN biofuel being accounted for and used (rather than some being wasted). 

We have biofuel that gives many products. Some products are produced from energy being delivered to them, therefore determining energy distribution is necessary -to match like fuels during testing and later determine the fuel efficiency completing a cooking task. 

But products have value. Each a different value depending on the person and averaged over a community. The value will be determined if enough different stoves are available for those using them so they can pick the best from them. And using the stove giving the best value for the World can be ‘encouraged’ from society. So thanks to Ron (a very persistent person -thanks) I may be changing my view on how stoves should be valued. 

We need the energy discussion to come up with a means of fairly testing many stoves at low cost in labs certified labs around the World. 
We need to list products (soup, biochar, heat, ash etc) produced and ordered as to importance for a location.

Forming a list containing only clean burning energy efficient stoves (for those products) and a list of all the products produced in order of importance for a local could be the list of stoves to choose from for doing the more expensive and long field study. 

something like that…..?

Regards

Frank

Frank Shields

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>   
> Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://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 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>> 
>>> 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 <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/>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151126/081b2d00/attachment.html>