[Stoves] Differences in stove testing

[Cookswell Jikos]

Perhaps these guys could help shed some light on this confusion of stove
testing?


''If there’s one man who can either put your soul at ease or send you into
a state of panic, it's John Drengenberg, the Consumer Safety Director at
Underwriters Laboratories. He's a certified electrical engineer. Over the
past half-century at UL, he's tested hundreds, if not thousands, of stoves.
Both gas and electric, thank you. If John Drengenberg leaves the stove on,
he knows exactly what will happen.

"It's a very simple question," Drengenberg told me over the phone. We then
proceeded to talk about stove burners for 10 minutes.

"A stove is designed to run indefinitely," says Drengenberg. "Do we
recommend that? Absolutely not." While it's not the best idea to leave an
open flame unattended, If you leave your stove burner on, your house will,
in all likelihood, not burn down.

UL tests just about every stove that hits the market. Part of that testing
involves ensuring they hit thermal stability. In other words, they turn the
stove on, and check the temperature of the burner, and keep checking the
temperature until it stops increasing — just to make sure the burner
doesn't ultimately set the entire stove on fire.

"If you leave it on, and there's nothing on the stove or near the stove, it
probably will stay running until you come back," he says.

So nothing would happen. And yet, the leading cause of house fires is
unattended cooking. So just what is going on here?''...


http://digg.com/2017/what-happens-if-you-leave-burner-on



*Cookswell Jikos*
www.cookswell.co.ke
www.facebook.com/CookswellJikos
www.kenyacharcoal.blogspot.com
Mobile: +254 700 380 009
Mobile: +254 700 905 913
P.O. Box 1433, Nairobi 00606, Kenya

Save trees - think twice before printing.






On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Bond, Tami C <yark at illinois.edu> wrote:

> Hello again friends,
>
> I don’t wish to prolong the efficiency discussion of which so many are
> weary. I would just like to ask for help with information. Anyone who
> wishes to go away from this topic, I completely understand. You may
> immediately delete this message.
>
> Let us suppose that we have ANY device that does two things: giving heat
> and light, refrigerating food and making ice, producing heat and
> electricity, producing cooking heat and char.
>
> **If you know of ANY example in engineering practice, OTHER than the WBT,
> in which the efficiency is calculated by subtracting one of the services
> from the denominator rather than by putting both outputs in the numerator,
> can you please make it known to me?**
>
> This is not a question of devaluing any of the device’s outputs— I am
> seeking only the appropriate method of communicating them.
>
> Within TC285 - WG1 (“Conceptual Framework”), I am seeking support via
> precedent, for what you folks have been calling the “denominator equation"
> of calculating efficiency. I have done a search of the engineering
> literature to find such an precedent, and I cannot find one. The lone
> exception is use of byproduct gas from cokemaking, and there we have a
> difference in the control volume, where in the cokemaking situation one can
> draw a proper control volume around the byproduct boiler.
>
> I don’t think we need more discussion about validity of equations. I am
> looking only for precedents other than the case at hand. I would like to
> have references or links if at all possible.
>
> I am not seeking to prolong the discussion in WG1, either. I am hoping to
> close it down. If anyone is able to help in this search, I will use the
> information you provide by listing the precedent in a summary of issues
> which we plan to send to the group soon.
>
> I do consider the potential for misrepresentation to stakeholders to be a
> sufficient and, indeed, a necessary cause for examination of metrics. I
> also consider it wise for this relatively new community (I mean new in
> comparison with a couple hundred years of engineering records) to remain as
> consistent as possible with previous practice. I recognize that there is a
> lot of knowledge within the list here and I think that perhaps somebody may
> be aware of something that I have missed.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Tami
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> T. C. Bond - Nathan M. Newmark Distinguished Professor - John D. and
> Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow 2014
> U of Illinois: Civil & Environmental Engineering - Atmospheric Sciences
> (Affiliate) - Women & Gender in Global Perspectives (Affiliate)
> publish.illinois.edu/humanenvironments; www.hiwater.org
>
> *The only problem worth solving is the problem of **how we govern
> ourselves*. — *Karl Schroeder*, *Degrees of Freedom*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170210/5d9771aa/attachment.html>