[Stoves] Differences in stove testing ---- was Re: ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics

[Andrew Heggie]

On 7 February 2017 at 03:51, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> Dear Andrew
>
> Small correction, the energy that is 'releasable' form the fuel is in the denominator. It is also called embedded ‎energy and energy in the fuel fed and so on.
>

It's been a long series of threads but I remember the term being
released, also I haven't discussed this denominator as I haven't
followed the maths and am no longer clear what equation is being
wrangled over.


> If I buy 10 litres of gasoline and burn 5 and let the other five leak away, I cannot claim I only consumed five. I consumed five and wasted the other five.
>

I agree if having a leaky fuel tank were  part of the normal use of
the stove and so waste was inevitable, here we are talking of a co
product that may be used  in a further cooking (or power generation
project  as recently considered by the indefatigable Dr TLUD and
discussed by Alex and myself here 15 years ago)

> The fact that wasted fuel has energy doesn't reduce my wastefulness.

Only if it is truly wasted
>
> If I collected the drips in a cup and used in somewhere else, ‎i recoup some of the loss. But the original consumption is still 10 litres.

No it isn't because you still have the drips to use elsewhere
>
> Paul is describing a systems approach in which there are multiple stoves or 'energy devices'. The rating of each portion of that system is what we are doing with a stove test. ‎There might be three stoves in a chain using some input fuel. The rating of the fuel consumption and energy delivered on the first one is not altered by what happens later with the others.

I'll pass on that as the meaning is not clear to me.

It's semantics, you may as well say that  flying only  needs the fuel
necessary to overcome drag in going forward and not count  the effort
needed to throw air downward to counteract the tendency for the plane
to fall out of the sky.

A TLUD stove when operated at certain air flows co produces char,
Ronal sees that as an attribute you don't and see it as a waste
without value in energy or cash terms.

I see the value in a clean flame but until I get my head around the
consequential costs of pollution  I cannot put a value on it any more
than I can value attempts to counter CO2 increases in the atmosphere
or oceans.

Now I get my wood for no payment but a small amount of effort ( plus
fuel in my saw and transport including wear and tear) in converting
it. I burn it to ash, if someone comes along and offers me sufficient
money for co producing char  for doubling my throughput and effort I
can make a simple decision of whether it's worth my while and I may
take into consideration that I'm using a technique that  reduces the
outdoor air pollutionin my neigbourhood.

Andrew