[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Tue Dec 19 09:39:18 CST 2017
Crispin,
I agree that 30 years is a bit long!!
A Google search for "From WBT to WHT" did not yield the desired
document. Can you or Philip or someone provide it from the C4D (??)
website? Is it behind a paywall?
What was found was ONLY this:
> 1 result(0.58 seconds)
>
>
> Search Results
>
>
> [Stoves] [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures
> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJgrj9p5bYAhXM4yYKHZ2XANQQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fpipermail%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org%2F2016-March%2F011416.html&usg=AOvVaw1JzyoTnTvPE6K8RSL2-mTK>
>
> lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016.../011416.html
> All this is covered in the paper "/From WBT to WHT/" at the C4D
> website. With respect to the emission rate and total, unless the WHO
> model of exposure is validated somehow, I can't see how it is possible
> to claim that a stove 'cannot' or 'does not' meet some indoor air
> exposure advisory limit because that depends on the ...
Hey!!!! That is a link back to us!!! Crispin, Philip, and Paul have
messages there. I had forgotten about that exchange, and it was only
back in March of 2016. (and not 30 years ago!!). Some good stuff in
that exchange of messages.
But still not enough progress. That raises some questions:
1. It is hard to change the direction of a moving large truck (the WBT
and ISO and IWA, whatever), so it seem that China and India (and South
Africa?? and others????) have started moving in their own trucks along
somewhat parallel paths toward the same general goal of "stove testing".
2. How many people could (or have?) layed the alternatives side by side
for comparison? Tami, Crispin, Jim Jetter, some Chinese scholars, some
in Inida, etc. might do that or have done that. Not me. and not most
of us Stovers. But is it a question of having the same DATA but palced
into different formulae? Or are they not collecting the same data
either because of different instruments or because of different
proceedures? And there needs to be clear handling of "resultant char"
(maybe in TWO ways) if there is any relevance to TLUD char-making
micro-gasifier stoves.
3. Has */_anyone _/*"corrected" the mentioned LVH error from 30 years
ago? And shown its impact with test results done 2 ways (and not just
as calculations)?
4. For Crispin: Is there a "Crispin-approved test" (or set of
proceedures, etc.)? Or can it not be implemented with existing test
equipment?
5. Personally, I like the basis of water heating instead of water
boiling. [ And a lid on the pot and Frank's 6-Box approach are not bad
ideas). The cookstove community really does need some improvement.
Joke: Maybe it is time to throw out the baby with the [boiling]
bathwater. Maybe not a joke??? But to bathe the baby in the future
will still need some (maybe several) functional stove tests for
comparisons, otherwise the baby will start to stink. (this analogy is
not the basis for further work.)
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 12/19/2017 6:37 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Kirk
>
> I made no mention at all of sensors or quality of equipment, which is
> not specified in the WBT. I think it is not helpful for you or Ron or
> anyone to impute disagreements where there are none. The WBT is a test
> protocol that includes a test method and a set of calculations. What
> it your point is saying ‘it includes the CCT’ because it doesn’t
> exclude it? Seriously: what is your theory of change? Shooting
> messengers, even hosts of them, does not change the message.
>
> Conceptually there is nothing wrote with heating or boiling water. If
> you want really accurate results, heat water, don’t boil it – a point
> repeatedly emphasized by Prof Lloyd. There is a paper called “From
> Water Boiling Test to Water Heating Test” which explores this, (From
> WBT to WHT, it is called).
>
> If you want even more accurate assessments of your product, use
> formulas that are derived from first principles. That exercise has
> been done very by the SeTAR Centre and is why the HPT was created – as
> a way of avoiding all the historical errors that have accumulated in
> the WBT. I mentioned the LVH error in the list of woods at the back
> of the spreadsheet. That error was identified in 1987 by Sam Baldwin,
> someone highly praised in certain circles. Yet after 30 year (!) it
> has still not been corrected by Shell, Berkeley, Aprovecho, Tami Bond
> and ETHOS nor the EPA and GACC.
>
> How long should we wait for something as simple as a an error in the
> LHV from HHV calculation to be implemented? Do you agree 30 years is a
> bit excessive (and /still/ not corrected) is a bit excessive?
>
> Why should anyone take seriously the system of informal management of
> its “main messenger” that cannot gets its technical house in order? I
> don’t. Neither does Xavier. Not Jiddu. Nor the Indian government nor
> the Chinese government nor many others.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Kirk H.
> *Sent:* 19-Dec-17 12:25
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
> Thank you for your response. My question was if the disagreement was
> with all parts of the test or just the water boiling part. I guess
> your answer means that the disagreement is with all parts of the test
> including the CO sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate sensors and the
> weighing of the filters, as well as the water boiling portion. When
> you say WBT, you mean all of this, not just the water boiling in the
> pot. I also assume that the CCT is included in this, since your
> response did not exclude it. But since I have nothing else available
> for my use I will continue as is.
>
> I was using my stove to compare only because it and the fuel were
> constant between Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not
> to flaunt it as a clean stove. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
>
> Kirk H.
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C508e7c300ead46b2ea9808d546a9a7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492616834369342&sdata=NaGH3iFpwknHhuDte1RIdz%2FvvVkaWq9mKs1HvZl20jo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
> *From: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM
> *To: *Stoves <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
> Dear Kirk
>
> No thinks your stove isn't 'clean and efficient'. In truth we don't
> know what the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets for
> it are not available from Aprovecho (so you said when I asked) and
> LBNL not only doesn't share the spreadsheet behind the performance
> claims, they do their own evaluation using their own method (I wrote
> to them and asked specifically about your stove).
>
> In the real world. This is simply unacceptable. We do not accept
> anyone's performance rating for which we do know know the method and
> calculations.
>
> Similarly, the calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in
> accordance with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of any stove
> test to see).
>
> The ratings provided by LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual
> performance on the WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I
> have no need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the
> cooking cycle or the calculations OD the WBT.
>
> I do know that both those labs report using IWA metrics without any
> caution that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered is of
> questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer of the
> information is left with the impression that the numbers are
> meaningful which they may not be. To me that is at least, deceptive
> because both labs ae aware of the controversy and implications for the
> product ratings.
>
> It is telling that students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in
> view of the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed.
>
> The WBT should be eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable
> in the strictest sense of the word.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
> Xavier,
>
> I am surprised to read that you don’t know whether you disagree with
> the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the water boiling
> portion of the test. I did not specify Aprovecho’s equipment in my
> question. I tested the same stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence
> Berkley National Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very
> clean stove. Does the disagreement include Lawrence Berkley National
> Lab’s sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling
> water portion of the test? What exactly do those who disagree with
> the WBT, disagree with, just the water boiling portion of the test or
> the overall test? Is the Controlled Cooking portion of the test also
> included in this disagreement?
>
> Kirk H.
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
> *From: *Xavier Brandao <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM
> *To: *'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
> Dear Kirk,
>
> /“Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along
> with the boiling water?“/
>
> I don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the
> measurements from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.
>
> Other than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at Prakti,
> and I believe there are other cases where it happened.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
> *De :*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *De la
> part de* Kirk H.
> *Envoyé :* samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55
> *À :* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Objet :* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China
> andcookstoves]
>
> I have a question.
>
> When I test a stove I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along
> with the pot of water. Do you disagree with the sensors, computer
> graphs, and filters along with the boiling water? The water boiling
> portion of the overall test appears to attract your attention. How
> much of the overall test do you disagree with? What do you mean when
> you disagree with the WBT, are you including the sensors, computer
> graphs and filters?
>
> Kirk H.
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
> https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171219/c6b58fae/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list