[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

Mon Jan 23 11:52:21 CST 2017

Crispin,

Playing with words.   FUEL is not the same as ENERGY.   You and I have 
discussed this before.   And I accept that wood that has been turned 
into gases and charcoal is no longer wood.   But the Char is still with 
significant ENERGY, and that is what needs to be stated.

If CREEC is following the same terminology as the other testing centers, 
so be it.   The line should be labeled "energy efficiency."

You wrote:
> The appropriate metric for that [cooking] is the 'cooking efficiency', 
> which considers the amount of fuel needed and the cooking accomplished. 
Why would you say FUEL?????   We all know that people do not cook with 
FUEL.  They cook with the ENERGY that comes from the fuel. TLUD stoves 
(char making stoves) do not release all of the energy from the fuel.

You have not convinced me at all.   As I said, "playing with words."  I 
refer ONLY to the topic of char that needs to be taken into account.

And you said that I would agree that knowing "heat transfer efficiency" 
woud not be helpful to me.   I disagree.   It is certainly useful to 
know how well a stove gets the heat transferred into the pot.   We add 
pot skirts, bring the flame closer or further away, whatever it takes to 
get improvement.   And whether or not a stove has made charcoal or not 
is not part of that discussion because we are talking about energy, not 
fuel.

Concerning all of your _other _contentions about problems with the WBT, 
I cerrtainly hope that your arguements are not based on playing with words.

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 1/23/2017 7:40 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
> You are not trying to find the heat transfer efficiency. If you knew 
> what it was, you will agree it will not help you.
>
> Consider: you have hot gases passing the pot. You quantify (by 
> subtraction) how much energy is in the hot gases. You determine how 
> much heat is transferred to the pot. Divide the latter by the former 
> and you get the heat transfer efficiency.
>
> Now what do you do with the number? That is the metric stove designers 
> chase to improve. But there are other considerations for the designer.
>
> The Big Consideration is how much fuel is needed to achieve the 
> cooking. The appropriate metric for that is the 'cooking efficiency', 
> which considers the amount of fuel needed and the cooking 
> accomplished. Not too surprisingly, fuel consumption is a popular 
> metric to use when selecting a stove to buy, same as buying a car.
>
> The popular metric name is 'fuel consumption'. ‎If you look at the 
> bottom of the Quad II test report from CREEC Lab you will see that is 
> the name of the metric. It says the stove used 636 g of fuel. But the 
> stove used about 1200 g of fuel! That is not 636. Why? What's going 
> on? Why isn't the dry fuel mass consumed per test reported as the dry 
> fuel mass consumed? Bit of an obvious error, eh?
>
> They have reported an imperfectly calculated heat transfer efficiency 
> as the fuel efficiency. That is what a WBT does, and why the observed 
> field performance is /always/ worse than the WBT lab test, even if the 
> cooking in the field exactly matches the test sequence of the WBT.
>
> ‎I have previously discussed what that 636 number actually is, but it 
> certainly is not the mass of dry fuel consumed, which is what the 
> number is called. Anyone who uses that number to calculate the 
> relative fuel consumption of two or more stoves will be misled because 
> it does not represent the fuel consumption.
>
> Unfortunately the 'Stove Comparison Chart' uses that number to report 
> the fuel efficiency. Obviously the ratings are in error, each by a 
> different amount depending on how much char they happened to produce 
> that day. This leads to misunderstandings and mis-belief about what 
> people are getting and what they paying for.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Crispin,
>
> I have not yet had time to read your lengthy response to me (very busy 
> today).   But I did read your response to Ron (below).
>
> I find part of it to be astonishing.
>> What I cannot do is subtract anything from the denominator, unless I am trying to determine the heat transfer efficiency, which so far no one has claimed to be trying to do.
> I certain have been terribly stupid.  All along I thought we were 
> talking about the same thing.   Obviously not.  I accept the blame for 
> my lack of precision in my use of terminology. That is why I am not on 
> the ISO or other technical committees. Someday (when we have more 
> time) we can put all of the terminolgy into a list and show how each 
> one is different.
>
> So, as long as we discuss the "heat transfer efficiency", I now 
> believe that we three (you, Ron and me) are in complete agreement.
>
> Thank you.
>
> 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 1/23/2017 1:58 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> Dear Ron
>>
>> Nearly everything you ask is answered in the message to Paul
>>
>> “This is a 2013 EPA webinar (achieved by GACC) devoted to batch stoves - principally char-making.”
>>
>> The presentations makes a fundamental mistake of making two calculations and calling them both ‘thermal efficiency’. You can’t just go subtracting and adding things willy-nilly and assume that the result has meaning.
>>
>> The presentation from the EPA takes the incomplete WBT heat transfer efficiency formula (defective because it does not include all the necessary variables) and extends the application of it to claim it is considering the benefit of the energy in the char. It is not.
>>
>> It is also stated that the energy in the pot cannot be added to the energy in the char! Rubbish! They are both forms of energy, one sensible and the other stored chemical energy. I can added them without even using a calculator. They are both benefits of the operation of the stove, benefits derived from the consumption of the fuel. So is space heating, or operating a TEG to generate electricity. I can easily add all the energy in those benefits and arrive at an overall efficiency for the stove. Or, I can report them individually as if the other benefits were not needed or wanted.
>>
>> What I cannot do is subtract anything from the denominator, unless I am trying to determine the heat transfer efficiency, which so far no one has claimed to be trying to do. Were I to subtract numbers correctly, I could get the heat transfer efficiency to the TEG, the heat exchange, or the pot. But no one asked for that. They asked for the fuel consumption, the cooking efficiency and Paul want the char energy retention efficiency. No problem. Please see the response to Paul.
>>
>> Explain to me why you would want the cooking+char production efficiency of 37.5% reported as 16.66%. I look forward to that.
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170123/81d2957e/attachment.html>