[Stoves] Test procedures

Mon Jan 16 18:00:39 CST 2017

Paul,

I can see I need to use a lot more smily faces. : ) when I write.  There would be a lot left over from the ten million!

Biomass is such a variation of materials that it is not appropriate to name them like oak, pellets (made of many materials) and dung. It is a continuum. There are no books that list their energy values. Corrections are meaningless. We are not after energy efficiency. We are only after a test method we can use in the lab to compare stoves using oven dry fuel from a target location. Then take onsite using as-Received wild fuel - is my thinking (as of now). 

Use five or ten fuels it doesn’t matter. Fill the pipe with whatever you want to get the volatile fraction and char-ash fraction. I have gone over this repeatably for years so not excited to torture people with it all again.  

No need to compare a procedure like this where all variables are controlled and no Look-up data used to other procedures that have so much ‘guessing’ and twisting to fit into an engineer Energy Efficiency formula.  We determine if it works by how repeatable it is. And if we see a meaningful difference between data when using different fuels. We are after relative values used to rate different stoves as to better or worst for a fuel.

There is a lot more work involved in classifying a fuel. Physical properties and the different properties that make up the volatile fraction. That if we want to test the biomass at a location and then ‘look up' the best stove to use.  

Regards

Frank

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Frank,
> 
> I like what you wrote, except for the ten million dollars and the total number of variables.  We do not need to know about every combination.  We would like to know about SOME key combinations, but only after the method has been shown to work with just a few mainstream combinations..
> 
> 1.  Five fuels, maybe ten.  No dirt or leaves or avoidable contaminations.  Example:  wood pellets:  soft wood and hardwood.  See the difference between them.  Clearly state the expected quality in quantified ways, such as 500 g fills xxx ml and tests at 3 to 7 % MC.  Then, if another fuel in the test is not close enough, THEN state some corrections.   We are NOT after 5 digit precision.  
> 
> Fuels:   pick 8 of wood including pellets.  Most places and stoves are only with wood.      And pick 2 of other common biomass;  .  Maybe pick maize cobs and dung or ????  No need to overdo it, at least not until the overall methodology gets accepted.  Some tests of some wood with major different moisture content (MC).  
> 
> 2.  Stoves:  burners of dry biomass.  Major types:   Rocket (pick two), TLUD-ND (Champion) and TLUD-FA (Mimi-Moto), simple stick-burners, and  for benchmarks we need 3-stone fire and simple mud stove.
> 
> The objective is to show that the newly proposed methodology actually works.   And show those results compared to the currently proposed standard tests.   Show a solution.
> 
> That would be a major accomplishment.  MAJOR!!!!   Just a few repetitions with very few major combinations shows us about the method.
> 
> Please do not wait for the millions of dollars.  Please restate your proposal.
> 
> Paul
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> On 1/16/2017 3:18 PM, Frank Shields wrote:
>> Stovers,
>> 
>> Harold excellent outline below on designing and setting up a test procedure - for the purpose of lab testing where findings can be taken to the field to establish the correct (best) stove for the site. 
>> 
>> The main problem, I am now thinking, is that we are not given a clean sheet of paper to work out the different steps. If that was the case it would be easy. We have been ‘required’ to include two formulas that have made it impossible to come up with the desired method, spending many wasted years and countless millions(?) USD in the process. Still with no method. 
>> 
>> The first is the energy efficiency calculation of ((total energy) - (unburned energy)) / energy into the pot. 
>> Problems:
>> 1) When you stop a stove when the big hand strikes 12 and drag out all the unburned stuff you have a mixture of wet wood, dry wood, char, torrefied wood, and ash. The energy in that mess is hard to determine and impossible with any Robustness that is required for having a good method with such a variation of feedstocks. 
>> 
>> 2) There is NO standard energy values from books that we can use. Wild biomass contains all types of materials like bark, dead wood, cotton wood, leaves, nuts and berries, dirt and such. It must be measured. 
>> 
>> 3) The other formulas is where one takes the hydrogen in the biomass (estimated actually) and the hydrogen from the moisture and use it in the calculations to ’normalize’ the energy produced back to dry weight. A meaningless exercise. Comparing is done on a dry weight basis in the lab. Water in the wild fuel is just part of the fuel and should be reported as percent moisture but not used to lower the energy value of the fuel. We should determine what happens with using fuel having that moisture. If you were to take a dry fuel and runs it through the method. Then take the same amount of dry basis with a moisture of, say 20%, would the corrected results be the same as found using the dry biomass? I doubt it. In fact, if increasing moisture in biomass changes the amount of char thats produced (as been mentioned) that is proof you cannot apply that correction.
>> 
>> 
>> Its been like we are told we are required to use these formula in the method - WE DO NOT. Starting with a blank sheet and Harold’s guidelines any method we come up with that works will do. Real easy.
>> 
>> Then we will need about ten million dollars to buy stoves, all types of biomass and test out the procedure. 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is how it should be done, as explained by Harold Annegarn:
>>> 
>>> ‎Define the required output, the units and the accuracy needed. Define an acceptable range of error. 
>>> 
>>> Working backwards from the result through the formulas needed, define the measurements needed, their accuracy and precision. 
>>> 
>>> Describe the equipment needed to obtain those measurements and the conditions under which ‎they shall be obtained. 
>>> 
>>> The rest falls together. Terms needed are defined, and no term goes undefined. 
>>> 
>>> The result is a list of required measurements with defined parameters that can be used to select equipment. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Frank
>> Frank Shields
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>> Keith Day Company, Inc.
>> 1091 Madison Lane
>> Salinas, CA  93907
>> (831) 246-0417 cell
>> (831) 771-0126 office
>> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com

franke at cruzio.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170116/8951fd7c/attachment.html>