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

[alex english]

Andrew,
I think it is closer to 20 years now. Ug.

This discussion seem stuck in separate layers of an onion, with eyes a
watering:)  When looking at a system with inputs and output you have to
place your boundaries and pick your units. Boundaries can be stove,
kitchen, home and garden, community or beyond. Numbers; engineers have
theirs, accountants have theirs, economists ....well that's another story:)
ect.

There was a time when a large portion of the brightest physicists and
engineers were fixated on quantifying the multiple outputs from a
thermonuclear bomb. Society placed a larger boundary and different units
for their assessment. They put my father-in-law out to pasture.

If testing a candle in an igloo excludes out put of either the heat or the
light then the test is inappropriate. It would be correctly ignored by even
an economist.

If there are real world benefits to the co-product char then a cooking
stove test for a TLUD refinery/cooking stove is a subset of a far more
explanatory test which actually weighs all the benefits. Pity the poor
donors, their job became more complex.

If the fear is that both sides of this discussion will be ignored by higher
ups. Well that is at least well founded.
If the fear is that stove users won't see the outer layers of your onion,
well no surprise there either. Cry me a river.

Go solve a problem.
Alex





On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170207/90aef9ff/attachment.html>