[Stoves] Malawi Philips stove intervention study and Nikhil's 28 sins of insolence about GACC/WHO (Re: Ron Larson)

[Ronal W. Larson]

List and cc Crispin:

	Having trouble getting to sleep,  I googled and found this early citation that you referenced on March 18 this year  (see http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016-March/011416.html <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016-March/011416.html> for your message to this list)

http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/2074/2528/1/ranipre92.pdf <http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/2074/2528/1/ranipre92.pdf>.

	This early paper uses the same “denominator equation” - which you decry (quoting Baldwin/VITA), but it also brings in another term called
ASFC = Average Specific Fuel Consumption.  In the equation  Mf and Mc are respectively the mass of the fuel and char; Wf is the final weight of the water.

ASFC = (Mf-1.5* Mc)/Wf

		(The number 1.5 is obviously a rough average ratio of energy terms such as 27 and 18 MJ/kg for char and “biomass”).  I think 1.5 is a tad low.


	I contend that the subtraction in the numerator here serves exactly the same function as e2 being subtracted in the denominator of the PHU or e3 equation under debate.  For you to be consistent, therefore, I contend you need to say this equation is also bogus - that the mass of the charcoal should never have appeared in this equation.  Is that your opinion?  Or do you see no connection between PHU (or e3) and ASFC (denominator for the former, numerator for the latter)?


Ron


> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> List:  cc Crispin:
> 
> 		<snip as not being pertinent to new citation>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170118/b7389a51/attachment.html>