[Stoves] stoves and credits again
Frank Shields
franke at cruzio.com
Fri Sep 22 18:59:32 CDT 2017
Hi Ron,
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Frank and list:
>
> See inserts below.
>
>
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Stovers,
>>
>> The problems we have had for the past 10+ years and still seem to not realize is that we have used engineers and field research to come up with the solution. This is not an engineering or field workers problem. This is a simple grade school science project. Eliminate, reduce and get control over the variables.
>
> [RWL: And add social sciences. I do not think this is at all a simple problem.
This NEEDS to be a simple problem! or we go nowhere. The main center is the lab tests on the process going from biomass >> task. Yes - the social sciences about obtaining and optimizing the biomass for combustion is separate. The improvement of the combustion chamber by engineers is separate. But the Center of all this is the lab testing and that is behind closed doors.
>>
>> We have energy from a biomass and using that we complete a task. Along the way we have the cost of biomass ($ + time + work) and the task(s) (heat + hot soup + biochar + light). As to the value(s) to place on it that comes from the end user. NOT from a calculation.
>
> [RWL: Delighted that you have added biochar here. But it needs mention further below.
>
> The user can add a lot of course - but not able to add much on the health statistics - a major part of the “Tiers”. Health is appropriately of concern of governments to all citizens - acting on behalf of the end user. And not easy to measure. Agreed?
Everything measured so far has been a meaningless waste of time because we have not controlled the variables. A stove is clean with one fuel and a different fuel (or different particle size) and its dirty.
>
>>
>> Efficiencies, heat transport, PM2.5, heat retained, moisture, fuel energy, etc. etc have no place in the lab testing. Its only that a biomass > using the equipment supplied > can complete a task.
>
> [RWL: Disagree with both sentences . Also, we have agreed that there are at least two possible tasks for biomass stoves. The char-making task obviously takes away from the cooking task - at least in the short term.
Perhaps - but I am not so sure. The char is fully burned leaves a lot of its heat in the combustion chamber going from solid-C to CO a gas. So not as much wasted as we seem to be calculating as I see it. A task of heating a room and we need to burn this fixed carbon.
>>
>> To improve on that (less smoke, less fuel) the engineer can work with the stove developer to make improvements and then have it re-tested by the lab to determine the results of that improvement. Also; Field workers can then introduce the stove to the receiving site to test acceptance. Work with the stove developer to make changes , have re-tested and sent back to the field.
>
> RWL: Agreed.
>>
>> Biggest challenge for us is getting control of the energy from the biomass. AND establishing standard tasks that represent the tasks likely to be of interest to the field researcher (based on what people are using it for).
>
> [RWL: Agreed. The present WBT approved in the ISO process already handles nicely the dual tasks we agree are up for optimization.
It goes in the right direction IMO but fall short to the point of being meangless by the method used. That because engineers have designed the test methods and added a lot of ‘untested and fixed values and reported end results in meaningless data. The cook could care less about energy transport or efficiencies. Neither do I. Time, fuel, fuel prep, etc are important and a completed task success.
>>
>> I have ideas about the testing of biomass. Mostly derived from Tom Reed (Thank-you Tom!) and his use of TGA and then adding to that size , packing densities etc etc. As for the tasks I am thinking of something like a Task Cube used to plot heat. But that is more an engineering problem. Heat transport and such.
>
> [RWL: “Task Cube” is my main reason for responding. Can you carry this further? What are the three dimensions you have in mind? When I googled this term, one article popped up - but was behind a pay wall. But a paper that cited it was available and said this about their three dimensions:
>
> "Rind et al. [32] try to untangle the confusion in terminology, by introducing a conceptual space of tasks along three dimensions: abstraction (domain specific/domain independent), composition (low level/high level), and perspective (how/why).
>
> I can (only vaguely) see something there that might apply to this stove list dialog. At least one of my preferred axes is for cooking vs char-making.
>
> Why caused you to mention “Task Cube”?
I made up the name. I am thinking of a metal block with a thermistor inserted that is placed in with a simmering pot of soup and follow the temperature profile. Do this several times and you have what looks like the possible direction a hurricane is likely to travel. Record the temperature from start to the time the person removes the pot. That is the profile needed in the lab from a stove to determine if that task can be completed. The blocks made with precision and sold to labs. Made of the metal and size to work optimize for the temp profile being tested. Used in cast ion fry pans, hayboxes etc. Just an idea….
Thanks Ron
Frank
>
> Ron
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:28 AM, plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is wrong, spurious, faulty, unscientific. Efficency is the useful energy produced divided by the fuel input. Char is not an input but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency calculation. You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a product ( positive) and not a negative feed. Please stop trying to use bad science to justify an untenable position. It gives the whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterati try to justify their abuses.
>>> Philip Lloyd
>>>
>>> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
>>> From: "Ronal W. Larson"
>>> To: Discussion of biomass ,Andrew Heggie
>>> CC:
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew and list:
>>>
>>> I think we are in agreement on all but your last response, where I and you say:
>>>
>>> >> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
>>> >
>>> > Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a different viewpoint
>>> > but his goal is the same in promoting clean cookstoves.
>>>
>>>
>>> RWL: Afraid I can’t agree.
>>>
>>> I can remember no Crispin statement ever in support of char-making TLUDs, which all data shows are the cleanest. Plenty of Crispin support for cleaner stoves using coal - which I claim can never be justified - for both health and climate reasons.
>>>
>>> His continued fighting against the equation e3 = e1/ (1-e2) is my major concern.
>>> Y t.v.
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 22, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Heggie wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Andrew wrote
>>> >> There might be a slight case for saying a
>>> >> gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow (particularly lower N2)
>>> >> because the primary combustion doesn't go to completion so less
>>> >> primary air is used, the corollary may be that the secondary flame
>>> >> also can be burned with less excess air because the offgas has a
>>> >> higher calorific value but not enough to make up for using 50% less
>>> >> energy..
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to address the term “50”
>>> >
>>> > Ronal I clarified this in my reply to Paul, obviously it is subject to
>>> > experimental measurements but from a desk study given that the char is
>>> > reacted at 600C AND 20% of the original biomass dry weight remains as
>>> > char then it looks like the energy remaining in the char is closer to
>>> > 1/3 than 1/2 of the original energy in the dry wood.
>>> >
>>> >> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15 words.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Partially dealt with above but also what I was meaning was that the
>>> > offgas from a TLUD, with just sufficient primary are to maintain the
>>> > descending pyrolysis front, will be largely the pyrolysis offgas plus
>>> > the small amount of gases from the combustion that provides the heat
>>> > to drive the process. So it will be little diluted by CO2 and nitrogen
>>> > than from a traditional fire which supplies enough under grate
>>> > (primary) air to completely burn out the char. Hence the offgas from
>>> > TLUD is of a higher calorific value and as such needs less excess air
>>> > to maintain a clean flame. On a larger scale with lower heat losses in
>>> > the primary region this may not be the case.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Disagree with Crispin’s statement that a case with 25% char retention
>>> >> involves “50% of the original energy” (as did Paul Anderson).
>>> >
>>> > Also dealt with but we need corroboration from analysis of TLUD char.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Agree with most by Andrew - but think the last sentence needs amplification.
>>> >> That is - lower temperature char can be a better economic choice, even if
>>> >> “fixed carbon retention” is less. This is better discussed on the biochar
>>> >> list. pH value is one criterion that could point toward lower T’s.
>>> >
>>> > ...and of course lower fuel input cost would make it more economic
>>> > even if the carbon credit paid to the producer were based solely on
>>> > the fixed carbon.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG stoves do not
>>> >> have lower emissions than any solid fuel stove.
>>> >
>>> > It seems unlikely to me that simple stoves could have lower emissions
>>> > than a LPG flame but Crispin did say as near as makes no difference
>>> > and good enough works for me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Andrew
>>> >> The trouble is I have a
>>> >> parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons
>>> >> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I disagree with Andrew calling
>>> >> himself “parochial” - when he supports (as do I) the ethics of “a subsidy
>>> >> funded by the developed world”.
>>> >
>>> > I was referring more to my lack of experience of stoves in the real
>>> > developing world compared with yourself, Crispin, Nikhil and many
>>> > others.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> So my contention is that apart from the carbon credit there is a value
>>> >> to the land in not having to export a cash crop.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [RWL10: Agree totally.
>>> >
>>> > It still means the grower needs to recognise that exporting a
>>> > conventional cash crop is removing mineral wealth from the holding, in
>>> > many soils with high initial fertility this may not be significant. So
>>> > whilst the cash that the grower/stove user might receive will be
>>> > linked to the carbon credit paid for using the resultant char as a
>>> > soil amendment he might also value not having to use the land for a
>>> > cash crop and possibly growing stove fuel.
>>> >>
>>> >> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
>>> >
>>> > Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a different viewpoint
>>> > but his goal is the same in promoting clean cookstoves.
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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 <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 <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/>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frank Shields
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>> Keith Day Company, Inc.
>> 1091 Madison Lane
>> Salinas, CA 93907
>> (831) 246-0417 cell
>> (831) 771-0126 office
>>
>> 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/>
Thanks
Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA 93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
franke at cruzio.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170922/23a7f9f2/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list