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

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,

Nice comment.

Your response passes the test about saying something truthful and useful.

It did not pass the test of addressing the question that I asked. The 
question remains,
> 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? 
Maybe there is a problem with my question.   Or maybe nobody actually 
knows how remaining charcoal is treated in those tests.

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 6:19 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
> There are two things to check. First, what is the question that is 
> being answered? Second, does the metric provide the answer to that 
> question.
>
> ‎Of course it is obvious that the question has to be valid in the 
> first place and the method of determining the answer has to follow 
> basic principles.
>
> Something that is surely not well understood by the 'results-using 
> public' is that all measurements have an uncertainty. All calculations 
> involving measurements pass that uncertainty on. The result given in 
> response to any question therefore has an uncertainty. When that 
> uncertainty is larger than the supposed benefit there is doubt that 
> the stove meets the standard of 'better'. When the uncertainty is much 
> larger than the gain or loss, benefit claims are worthless. That is 
> the point of Fabio's paper.
>
> ‎There is a study of indoor air quality in Ulaanbaatar gers (yurts) by 
> a Korean team. They concluded that homes with improved stoves have 
> 'significantly worse air quality' than homes with traditional stoves. 
> 260 v.s. 210 microgrammes per cubic metre 24 hr average (in winter).
>
> Gasp! Horror! Solid fuel improved stoves make the problem 'worse'!‎ 
> Alert! Alert!
>
> Let's look at the statistics. The uncertainty on the '201' number is 
> ±187. On the 260 it is ±201.  The claimed difference is 50. The 
> uncertainty is >3.5 times larger than the 'difference'. The claim for 
> 'significance' is meaningless.
>
> Next, what was the outdoor air quality during these measurements? All 
> combustion and excess air has to enter the home from outside. ‎It was 
> >300, /higher than 260 the whole time/. Oops.
>
> They only proved that there is statistically no detectable difference 
> between indoor and outdoor air quality whatever the stove type.
>
> Cancel the alert.
>
> So it is not enough to provide a test 'answer' it has to be 
> accompanied by a range of uncertainty, or factored into it as I am 
> suggesting for a 'warrantied rating'. ‎The uncertainty can be limited 
> by very accurate instruments and a well-designed protocol and zero 
> conceptual errors.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170122/8a93971c/attachment.html>