[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

[Paul Anderson]

Ron and all,

Sorry to be 6 days late (limited time and some files went to Spam folder 
-- not yet resoleved).

I have only briefly lookes at the report from Indonesia.  Author(s) not 
given, but I believe Crispin and Cecil were part of the writing team.

Yes, we will need to exmine the comments such as on page 4:

> The
> development of stoves that make charcoal concurrent
> with cooking has resulted in stoves that consume as
> much or more fuel than a three stove fire.
>
> When rated for their 'heat transfer efficiency' (a
> calculation of the percentage of heat released from the
> fire that enters the pot) there is a mismatch with 'fuel
> consumption' since the heat contained in the charcoal
> is not released during burning. The WBT rates the
> efficiency of the use of energy released, not the
> efficiency of the use of the energy in all the fuel
> extracted from the forest. Stoves that are 15-20%
> efficient from the 'forest's point of view' are being been
> credited with 'an efficiency' that is over 50% because
> they do not burn all the fuel, it is turned into charcoal.
Authors of papers, whoever they are, should be able to provide some hard 
data (real numbers) supported by descriptions of how the data were 
collected.

In general, "containerized fires" (such as in most rocket and TLUD and 
Save-80 and other stoves) shield and direct the heat to the pot far 
better than do the 3-stove fires.   They use less fuel, even when there 
is a "by-product" of charcoal that no longer looks like wood but has 
energy content that can be used for cooking in a different stove.

In the absence of the above requested data,  the reported data from the 
Deganga Case Study ( www.drtlud.com/deganga2016 ) solidly refutes the 
above statements.

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 10:11 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> List:  cc Crispin and Dr. Winter
>
> I’m not sure why Crispin finds it so difficult to give a cite.  After 
> five minutes I found this (non-fee) at a World Bank site (it is not 
> findable via Google Scholar):
> https://collaboration.worldbank.org/docs/DOC-15092.   It may be from 
> 2015 - or 2103.   I send this early mainly to save time of others who 
> may be looking for it (also early for personal time commitment reasons).
>
> To make sure I was at the right document, I decided to search the 
> document for “charcoal”.   So, to give readers reason to look at the 
> whole document, I send this sentence (again - before reading the 
> entire document - there may be better examples):
> / “The development of stoves that make charcoal concurrent with 
> cooking has resulted in stoves that consume as much or more fuel than 
> a three stove fire. “/
> /
> /
> To me this shows a serious lack of knowledge on TLUDs.  This lack was 
> proven a week ago with Dr.  Julien Winter’s nice report of the exact 
> opposite of this statement - and the delight of cooks with the results 
> of placing the (now) biochar in the ground (without needing more 
> fuel).  (See this list on Dec. 5, and 3 subsequent responses from Dr. 
> Winter).  Dr.  Winter reported not only less fuel, but “free” char 
> (maybe 25% char - by weight).
>
> Scanning this only briefly,  I think there are reasons to also read 
> this in terms of the accuracy we need in a WBT or its possible 
> replacement.  I am happy with a few percentage points, and this 
> authorless paper seems to think we need much better.
>
> I recommend we have a serious discussion of this article recommended 
> by Crispin.  That discussion might clear up a number of 
> misunderstandings both about char-making stoves and testing.
>
> I’ll come back later to raise some other points as Crispin (below) 
> critiqued Kirk (and me - a little).
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott 
>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> 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 
>> <mailto: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 fromMail 
>> <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 fromMail 
>> <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 fromMail 
>> <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 <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/20171224/2cd6c6ef/attachment.html>