[Stoves] How other tests calculate with remaing charcoal ... was Re: Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

[Paul Anderson]

To Crispin and all,

Crispin wrote about other tests of stoves (not the WBT water boiling test):

> We should concentrate on evaluating others. There are several. EPTP, 
> MWBT, CSI, BST, HTP, IS 15132 and so on and on. Let’s get on with it.
>
That is quite a list, including the "and so on and on."

I would greatly appreciate some knowledgeable comments about how THOSE 
OTHER TESTS handle the issue of charcoal that is left in the stoves.   
Is there some agreement between those many tests?

And be sure that the discussion relates to the stoves that INTENTIONALLY 
DO LEAVE CHARCOAL BEHIND.

Some useful numbers (in general) relating to char-making stoves 
(specifically TLUDs), and based on dry weight of fuel and charcoal:

100% of fuel (wood) includes 100% of the carbon in the fuel

Charcoal (weight) yield is about 20% of the dry weight of the fuel.

Char (energy) contains about 30% of the ENERGY that was in the fuel 
(char is more energy-dense (by weight, not volume).

Char (carbon atoms)contains about 50% of the carbon atoms of the 
original fuel.

The big cause of those different percentages is that wood is a 
carbohydrate, which includes some oxygen and hydrogen atoms which 
influence the possible energy (release and burn the hydrogen) and 
influence the weight (Oxygen has weight but no energy value).

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 1/22/2017 3:36 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Frank
>
> I can add to the uncertainty, which I think has been pretty well 
> covered in the journal articles, the issue of the validity of the 
> reporting metrics themselves. This was addressed squarely in Zhang, Y 
> /et al/ 2014 which challenged the validity of all three IWA low power 
> metrics
>
>  .... snip.....
>
> So I am dropping my call for a review of the WBT 4.2.3. Looking 
> through the available literature, it has been done by several groups 
> and all a new one will show is more details and defects.  We should 
> concentrate on evaluating others. There are several. EPTP, MWBT, CSI, 
> BST, HTP, IS 15132 and so on and on. Let’s get on with it.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170122/5e7de597/attachment.html>