[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Fri Sep 22 23:16:17 CDT 2017


List and 3 ccs:  

	See inserts below.


> On Sep 22, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
>  
> >[RWL1:  I believe the equation (to repeat:  e3=e1/(1-e2) ) is not wrong, not spurious, not faulty and is scientific.  
>  
> It is wrong, it is spurious, it is faulty (logically) and is therefore not scientific because science rests upon logic.

	[RWL1’:   All could be true, but you are again not addressing anything specific about the WBT’s  e3 = e1/1(1-e2) equation.  Surprisingly to me, you even say below that it does have a valid use!

>  
> >My main support is that it is currently used in the WBT in the ISO TC 2785 process.  
>  
> Your “support” lends no support. It is definitely in the WBT and that is why the WBT doesn’t give correct answers to the question, “What is the fuel consumption of this stove?” It also fails to correctly answer the question, “What is the specific fuel consumption of this stove?”

	[RWL2’:  This is a statement that the people voting in the ISO TC285 process are ignorant.  I think they are not.

The question I think is being answered is different from your two.  Mine is:  
	“What would the fuel consumption of a stove making char (either intentionally or accidentally) be if no char had been made?”

	How about rephrasing your two questions so they contain the word “char”?  You below seem to concur that my question (which I say is the same as the WBT question) has validity.

>  
> >To have that status, this equation was recently endorsed by numerous experts from numerous countries (with South Africa in a small minority, I think).
>  
> You are talking through your hat, I am afraid. The equation has no support from ‘experts’ and has no support in the literature.

	[RWL3’: Again a statement that the (sizable) TC285 group has no experts. I gave my favorite citation and I’m sure can give dozens if not hundreds more using the e3=e1/(1-e2) equation.  Do you disagree with either the “dozens” or “hundreds” estimate?

	You have given no literature support - even though I have asked at least 3 times for a citation today alone.   Apologies,  but I must  ask you again for a single “expert” peer reviewed cite for your assertion that the equation has no validity.  (although you below reverse this assertion)

> It is an unfortunate and unique piece of junk that pollutes the stove performance space. That it still has support in certain quarters tells us something about the supporters, not the value of the error.

	[RWL4:  This is third time you have said the same thing (still without a cite). 

> 	
> >I know of no peer-reviewed publication that argues against e3=e1/(1-e2).  Please list all those such cites that you like.
>  
> A thorough investigation of engineering sources finds no support for rating performance on the basis of any of the energy being subtracted from the denominator, the  input energy.

	[RWL5:   What is the name and location of this “thorough investigation”?


> There is no need to publish a peer-reviewed article attacking junk science.

	[RWL6:   I have seen the same statement in web sites and blogs that attack the theory of human-caused global warming.  Conversely I have seen many times that scientists love nothing better than to publish a refutation.  Let me know if want a cite or two on this last statement about the way scientists think.


> The WBT ‘thermal efficiency metric’ It is self-eviscerating.

	[RWL6:  Hmm.  Google didn’t give me much toward on the “self” part - but see https://books.google.com/books?id=FEhtEyP2QnYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=self-eviscerating&source=bl&ots=Hft6qkEjGi&sig=RvTKfFT7lKlrgnpWTNYoN-x4klE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit6Mzlr7rWAhVJ9GMKHYQTCXkQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=self-eviscerating&f=false <https://books.google.com/books?id=FEhtEyP2QnYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=self-eviscerating&source=bl&ots=Hft6qkEjGi&sig=RvTKfFT7lKlrgnpWTNYoN-x4klE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit6Mzlr7rWAhVJ9GMKHYQTCXkQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=self-eviscerating&f=false>
	Maybe you can give a specific cite in the WBT showing the “self’ part of the deboweling.
	

>  
> If you want to report the production of energy, you report the energy produced divided by energy input.
> If you wish to report energy in char, you report energy in char divided by energy input.
> If you wish to report the energy in the pot, you report energy in the pot divided by energy input.
> If you wish to report the energy in the pot and energy in the char you report
> (Energy in the pot + Energy in the char) divided by the energy input.
> If you wish to report the energy lost, the energy in the pot and the energy in the char, you report
> (Energy lost + energy in the pot + energy in the char) divided by the energy input = 1
>  
> The denominator is always the same.

	[RWL7:  I said all of those things already.  None are in dispute.

>  
> If you wish to report the fraction of energy input that reached the pot and was not contained in the residual fuel, you could use the WBT formula, but that is neither the efficiency nor does it represent the fuel consumption. 

	[RWL8:  We are getting somewhere!     You have given exactly what I want when you say:  
“If you wish to report the fraction of energy input that reached the pot and was not contained in the residual fuel, you could use the WBT formula” .    	 

	Can we now say that you endorse the equation if used for the purpose you endorse?   
	What term would you use for that formula, if it is not an efficiency?

>  
> If you take the energy lost and divide it by the energy in the pot, you get a number, but it is as useless a number for assessing fuel consumption as the WBT formula.

	[RWL9:   To the contrary, I think that is a wonderful idea and number and would strongly urge putting much more about energy lost into all WBT reports.  In my hypothetical examples we would get ei/e1 = (1/3)/(1/3) = 1. Better for TLUDs would be ei/(e1+e2) = (1/3)/(2/3) = 1/2.    Most stoves have numbers way above 2.  Thanks for the suggestion - but it may be too late for the TC285 material.
> 
> You can also take the mass of char and divide by Tuesday to provide another useless metric of no value for assessing fuel consumption.

	[RWL10:  My interpretation of this sentence is that you have zero regard for stoves producing char when “assessing fuel consumption”.   This is in agreement with my statement (you thoughtfully retained below)

> There are many useless things one can do with numbers.

	[RWL10:   Yup.    And the converse is also true, I presume you would agree:  “There are many useful things you can do with numbers”  Or do you also disagree with that?  You make it sound as if numbers are worthless, and surely you don’t mean that.

	[RWL: I also note that you chose to only comment on a surprisingly small subset of my numbered comments below.  A good many of them ask for citations - but it seems pretty certain that you won’t supply any.  Perhaps Philip will be so kind as to supply one (peer-reviewed) decrying this formula e3=e1/(1-e2).

Ron

>  
> Regards
> Crispin
>  
>  
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: 22-Sep-17 20:54
> To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>; Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
>  
> List, Paul,  Philip:
>  
>                 See inserts below.
>  
>                 Newcomers will need to also see my message (I’ll call it “A”) of yesterday in which this issue of e3=e1/(1-e2) was a big part.  (same thread title)
>  
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>  
> Philip,
> 
> Good.   Let's move this forward.
> 
> Please provide the equation that puts char (that is, the energy in the char) above the line in a way that recognizes that it is not a loss of energy, it is only a transformation of the energy that is in the fuel.
>  
>                 [RWL:  Paul, thanks.  I wonder if Philip will like the one I gave:   e3’ = e1+ e2  (which was 2/3 in my “A” example).  Both e1 and e2 have “1” (the input energy) in their denominator.
> 
> 
> Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the equation that is to be provided.  
> 
> Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency is not the same as fuel efficiency.
>  
>                 [RWL:  I do not know how to interpret this.  Can you or Crispin express this statement in equation terms?  In my example of e1 = e2 = 1/3 (and inefficiency (“ei”)  necessarily = 1/3),  I am willing  to use either “energy efficiency” or “fuel efficiency” for the terms e3 or e3’.  Or maybe you are using e3 and e3’ for this difference?  If so, which is which?
>  
>                 More below, responding somewhat similarly to Philip.
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> On 9/22/2017 12:28 PM, 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.
>  
>                 [RWL1:  I believe the equation (to repeat:  e3=e1/(1-e2) ) is not wrong, not spurious, not faulty and is scientific.  It has been used for centuries and I know of no other (repeat NO OTHER) way to get a correct statement of efficiencies in a char-making stove when talking of cooking and comparing stoves.
>  
>                 My main support is that it is currently used in the WBT in the ISO TC 2785 process.  To have that status, this equation was recently endorsed by numerous experts from numerous countries (with South Africa in a small minority, I think).
>  
>                 I know of no peer-reviewed publication that argues against e3=e1/(1-e2).  Please list all those such cites that you like.
> 
> 
> Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the fuel input.
>  
>                 [RWL2:  Disagree.  This is fine if e2 is zero.    I contend strongly that the term e2 is “useful”.
> 
> 
> Char is not an input but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency calculation.
>                 
>                 [RWL3  Yes and No.   I have said that “above the line” is fine - in one overall sense.  (giving e3’ = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3).  But e3’ is not a valid equation if the interest is cooking alone.  And we need a cooking only computation - if we are to compare char-making stoves to non-char-making stoves.  Or do you think one should never make that comparison?
>  
> 
> 
> You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a product ( positive) and not a negative feed.
>  
>                 [RWL4;  Disagree.  When looking at the cooking only situation (needed to compare rockets to TLUDs), the charcoal (e2) is indeed a “negative feed”.
> 
> 
> Please stop trying to use bad science to justify an untenable position.
>  
>                 RWL5:  I await your citations on comparing rockets and TLUDS.   I reject the apparent South African official position that charcoal should ALWAYS be ignored. If  e3 = e1 only is your position - please tell us how South Africa will be reporting its tests on TLUDS (with their sizable e2).
>  
> 
> 
> It gives the whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterate try to justify their abuses.
>  
>                 [RWL:   Hmm.  Interesting way to conduct a dialog on something that has recently been officially approved by the ISO - I believe by a sizable majority.
>  
> Ron
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 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/>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170922/e11755ea/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list