[Stoves] personal pollution monitors (Andrew)

[Ronal W. Larson]

Crispin  (again adding back in the stoves list;  I hope it is clear that dialogs like this need to go to the full list)

	1.  Sorry for the confusion over “bible”.  I have given only one cite (and attachment) today.  Here again is what I was jokingly referring to as the “Bible” (since I believe it is accepted by we “stove believers”):  http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html>) (attached earlier)

	2.  For third time,  I repeat my request for two (2) cites from the above document:  
	At 11:05 AM (Denver) yesterday, I said:  I find the weight of the fuel being prominent - so don’t understand your statement below on this topic.   How about picking two pages/equations here that you think has been done incorrectly?  (No more than 2, please, at first.)

	At 1:15 PM yesterday I said:  1.  Let me try again.  I said: "How about picking two pages/equations here that you think has been done incorrectly?  (No more than 2, please, at first.)”  (from the site and the attachment).
	I presume many on this list were waiting to see what you disliked the most in this sort-of official “bible”.  
	
	3.  You also apparently didn’t noticed that I had asked (see the 1:15 PM message) for the cite to the Kirk Smith article (and I now read also was a comment tothis list).  I again ask for those.  Being told it was “earlier this year” is not advancing the dialog.  In case this is not clear, you used the term: “dreadful 2016 paper from BUCT and Kirk Smith”.

Ron



> On Dec 25, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by the 'bible'. 
> 
> The paper was discussed earlier this year on this list including at least one response from Kirk. It makes the fundamental error of assuming that comparing the heat transfer efficiency of two stoves is the same as comparing their fuel consumption. 
> 
> I don't think anyone on this list is in any doubt about the complaint regarding calling a heat transfer efficiency or a proxy of it anything to do with the fuel consumption or energy efficiency (a mass of fuel being a proxy for an embedded energy content).
> 
> 
> >"How about picking two pages/equations here that you think has been done incorrectly? 
> 
> The WBT reports a dry fuel mass equivalent of the energy theoretically released from burned fuel, disregarding energy contained in unrecovered char and unburned gases. ‎It is titled 'fuel consumption' which obviously it is not. 
> 
> >2.  We agree on one thing.  I have been arguing against the subtraction in the denominator (described below) for at least a decade.  Not for your reason though.  That approach under- (not over-) estimates the efficiency I want reported.  
> 
> Then your calculation is in error. 
> 
> If it is added to the numerator the result, 55% in my example, is lower than subtracting it from the denominator, 58.3%. 
> 
> >(Not in your analysis below, because you threw away part of the char that I was trying to obtain - char of the size you want to forget about is “exactly” ready for the garden.)
> 
> I didn't 'throw away' anything. ‎I explained how to correctly report the cooking efficiency, the heating efficiency, and the efficiency of retaining fuel energy in the char. It is not complicated nor is it unusual. 
> 
> >3.  Maybe we will agree if you show us your calculation of the various Inefficiencies (emphasis only on the “in” part) in your example.  Where exactly do you see “wasted” or “non-useful” energy?
> 
> I did not say anything about 'waste'. I showed how to correct the calculation of efficiencies that are at present ‎calculated incorrectly in the WBT spreadsheet. 
> 
> >5.  To repeat, for emphasis, I am looking for specifics in the 2014 version of the “bible”.   Especially the part about not reporting weights.
> 
> What 'bible'?
> 
> Reporting the energy efficiency does not require knowing 'weights' ‎except the mass of fuel fed in during each replication of the test. 
> 
> Regards 
> Crispin
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161226/42c8cf96/attachment.html>