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

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,   see below;

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 12/24/2017 4:13 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
> I have been providing hard numbers literally for years and no one is 
> taking the point seriously.
I read you messages now and in the past and somehow we still differ.  
Either the sender or the reader (or both) is not making the clear 
connection.

You thanked me for releasing the Quad 2 spreadsheets.  (and your 
analysis of them did not convince me then.)  But when I ask for such 
data from Indonesia, you only refer me to the publication which does not 
give that data.   Maybe you could try again with some indonesia data.   
Show me the data from a TLUD stove that consumed as much fuel as a 
three-stove fire to do the same task.  Be sure to include all the 
relevant info about the stove, the fuel and how the stove was operated.

And to remind all readers, Crispin and I agree that FUEL efficiency is 
different from ENERY efficiency.  Many of the proceedures and 
terminology of stove testing were being established before "char-making 
TLUD stoves" were being seriously considered.   Back then (and still 
today), there is no meaningful difference between those two 
effficiencies WHEN THE STOVE BURNS ALL THE FUEL TO ASH.

Things have changed, and the OLD definition of efficiency (with either 
FUEL or ENERGY as the descriptive term) should probably be reconsidered.

Some places, FUEL efficiency is important.   Some places ENERGY 
efficiency is important.   Some places (with abundant fuel), this is not 
imporant to the user.

Paul
> Perhaps now that you are all reading the papers and realising there is 
> a serious side to this fuel consumption business, it will be given the 
> proper attention it deserves.
>
> "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."
>
> This is supported by tests and ratings gathered over a number of years 
> including testing conducted by the YDD Lab, however the argument is 
> conceptual, not referring to any particular stove. I have provided 
> examples of actual stoves including the Quad II test in Uganda, which 
> was based on data graciously made available by you.
>
> That one hard cover example ‎is sufficient to make the point: the 
> rated 'fuel consumption' is far less than the actual fuel consumption. 
> Only one example is needed to make the point, the point being that the 
> WBT, as Ron prefers it, grossly over-rates the fuel efficiency of char 
> making stoves. It also over-rates the performance of Rocket stoves and 
> similar if it has a fuel shelf elevating the fuel.
>
> Properly assessed, a char making stove has to account for the raw fuel 
> needed 'from outside the system'‎ each time it is used.
>
> At the time that document was written, there were errors later 
> corrected in 2012 which reduced the over-rating significantly but 
> still rated it, in the case of a 'good char maker', at over double the 
> actual efficiency.
>
> That this point is finally getting through to the promoters of these 
> stoves is a nice holiday present to me. Absent a proper consideration 
> of the performance using appropriate metrics, there is only chaos and 
> cheating.
>
> May all acquaintance be forgot in the new year and all things made right.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> 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 
>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcollaboration.worldbank.org%2Fdocs%2FDOC-15092&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3c020beb6ae44e3f3aa908d54b0d09c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636497441725144771&sdata=vNLSbT%2Bate4KkGAe3NPPQRsasENQfwWj8bKY5l2k5BM%3D&reserved=0>. 
>>   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 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3c020beb6ae44e3f3aa908d54b0d09c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636497441725144771&sdata=%2BhsW9ixOnBXVjXDLBf5WhdP7KzoylzP44Ls1uUbArr4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3c020beb6ae44e3f3aa908d54b0d09c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636497441725144771&sdata=XYGi6YVySZL2n1tBa5vWD9NvVLNOtbpiBD7BtAFuz08%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/
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171225/72be8a6c/attachment.html>