[Stoves] Differences in stove testing
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Wed Feb 15 00:52:13 CST 2017
Drs. Chiang and Bond, cc List
I have had a lousy day ridding my computer of a virus Among other things, I could not download this until a few hours ago: http://www.pciaonline.org/files/ISO-IWA-Cookstoves.pdf <http://www.pciaonline.org/files/ISO-IWA-Cookstoves.pdf>.
This gives the names of the 90-some people who signed off on the ISO stove “standard” that is developing. I put “standard” in quotes because few ISO standards have Tiers - which is at the bottom of all the current concern about the equation used to establish the Tiers. I am pretty sure no-one would care about this equation if it wasn’t the basis for the efficiency Tiers. This is only one of the 9 Tier structures at play - and all are described in the above cite. Along with much of the history that Dr. Chiang describes below. The cite gives a lot more than the names.
I just re-read Dr. Chiang’s bio (http://cleancookstoves.org/about/our-team/32.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/about/our-team/32.html>) - and am amazed how well it fits with her current responsibilities. I think I have known Dr. Chiang for about 6 years. The part I liked best in that bio was this (edited with numbers and formatting - for emphases):
“She also oversees the Alliance’s efforts to increase
1) performance,
2) affordability,
3) usability, and
4) access to a broad range of technology
and fuel opportunities.”
Reason for the quote - Someone asked today what the water boiling test was supposed to do. I like this 4-part list as a knowledgeable answer. And all four “increases” will disappear if the WBT is killed!
I ask all those seeking to kill the WBT to a) cite sentences from my first cite that says why the WBT doesn’t do these four things that Dr. Chiang says she is charged with overseeing for GACC.
Similar request b) If we don’t do what is now more than 4 years in the making - what is going to replace it? I have heard nothing substantive from any detractor of this huge ISO effort - which is continuing by a large percentage of the 90 names at the above cite.
I am a late comer to this ISO process [choosing to concentrate on biochar instead] - but I know a lot of the participants (because I was the first coordinator of this list). Most of those I know are still behind the WBT and Tier structures. I urge all to look over that list of 90 and make your own off-list contacts.
It is my impression that Dr. Bond has a very similar set of goals for the entire ISO process. And she also has put a huge effort into this ISO process. She has a valid concern - that I try to answer a bit more below.
See her fantastic resume at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tami_Bond <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tami_Bond> and http://www.hiwater.org/Documents/BondCV_2009-04.pdf <http://www.hiwater.org/Documents/BondCV_2009-04.pdf>. We met about the time she received her PhD - maybe 15 or more years ago..
See two short inserts below. Short because it is late; more coming.
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Ranyee Chiang <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The IWA meeting in the Hague was now 5 year ago, so I can see that it would be difficult to remember exactly what happened. The issue of who provided input into the IWA is an important one, so I think it is important to correct misrepresentations of what happened. During the IWA meeting, all the participants from about 20 countries went through the entire IWA draft line by line, word by word. There were opportunities for people to exclude the Tiers at that time, but that was not raised by any of the participants. The participants also developed resolutions which were reviewed and approved by all the participants at the end of the meeting. The draft of the IWA was developed by mostly experts from the US. There were also 3 webinars prior to the IWA meeting in the Hague to collect and integrate input from a wide group of stakeholders. And then of course, during the IWA, participants were welcome to and did comment on every single part of the IWA.
>
> It is still true that the current ISO process has more thorough than the IWA, but the process was not as Tami described in her e-mail.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ranyee
>
Dr. Chiang: I don’t know enough to comment on your “ISO” history - although it all seems corroborated in the cite above. Please tell me if what I have said below to Dr. Bond fits with your own view on the WBT and especially the equation under discussion.
Next is my response to Dr. Bond.
>
>
> From: "Bond, Tami C" <yark at illinois.edu <mailto:yark at illinois.edu>>
> Date: February 13, 2017 at 11:41:27 PM EST
> To: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove testing
> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
>
> Hi Ron,
> I so much appreciate your feedback!
>
> To be clear, I am not looking for other metrics— some have already been proposed in WG1— although your discussions will likely be fruitful and possibly taken up later. I am ONLY, at this time, looking for precedents for defining an energy efficiency or thermal efficiency in the way that has been previously described, with a subtraction in the denominator. Other questions may come later; I believe it’s wise to take one thing at a time— focus helps.
[RWL1: I have spent 3-4 hours on this search and might have a lead or two. The technology that comes closest seems to be thermophotovoltaics - with combined electrical and thermal outputs. Can be from biomass - and could involve charcoal production as well - as a third co-product. I have a call in and know of other people to contact. I bet that if they had a Tier structure to foment technology advancement - they too would/could have a similar “denominator equation”. (what I have been calling e3 = e1/(1-e2) )
>
> I leave the question of Tiers for further discussion on this list. It is not under discussion (within WG1) at this time, although perhaps it will come later.
[RWL2: I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think the equation and its controversy is intimately tied to the Tier system. As I searched (more coming on the search) I found two (Google- free) boiler books from around 1910 that have this equation. To me, the equation has no technical faults. Both of the terms are measured; subtracting e2 (the char efficiency term) makes perfect sense. We get a number that I think will come close to what would happen without char-production. But this is NOT an efficiency coming out of the test. It neither promotes nor demeans anything.
More coming in defense of Tiers and the way they are derived. I believe I have an alternative approach that you would like. The important point is that well over half of the energy in char is usually receiving NO credit in the Tier structure. (Which is why the equation is NOT an efficiency.)
I yield to Dr. Chiang on the next paragraph. But also urge that all interested in this dialog should look at the first cite I have given above. There are a fine set of resolutions there (well beyond the Lima consensus document that we have mentioned briefly here).
Someone was thinking ahead as that (above-cited) document was put together!
Ron
>
> Since you were not in The Hague to witness the process of the IWA, I suggest that perhaps you might not want to lean on it as support. No opportunities were offered to modify the IWA document, but only to provide resolutions preceding it. Therefore, even if the assembled company had wished to exclude the Tiers, they would have been unable to do so. The current ISO process has a more thorough discussion, and includes more international stakeholders, than did the IWA, which was largely written only by members of the United States delegation. I encourage you to wait for coming documents before claiming that any particular position is supported by the entire international community.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tami
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg> <http://www.cleancookstoves.org/>
> Ranyee Chiang, Ph.D.
> Director of Standards, Technology and Fuels
> 1.202.448.4677 <tel:1-202-448-4677> Skype: ranyee.chiang <skype:ranyee.chiang?add>
> rchiang at cleancookstoves.org <mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170214/bf7b3e63/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list