[Stoves] stoves and credits again

[Bond, Tami C]

Good heavens! Are you folks *still* talking about this? No wonder I don’t keep up.


[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)

On 2/16/2017, I wrote:

"So, in candidates with denominator subtraction, we have (1) a heat-transfer efficiency, (2) an efficiency using sensible heat where subtracting a reference state is not only common but requisite, (3) an exergy efficiency from a Second-Law analysis. I *still* have yet to see a *thermal* efficiency where one actually removes *chemical energy* from the control volume and subtracts it from the denominator.”

Haven’t seen anything to change my mind yet. I moved on.

Ron and Crispin: This “Is an expert!” “Is not!” “Is so!” is not compelling. It is an ad hominem argument that people use when they are either uncomfortable with facts, or petty. Give citations and reasoning. Yes, you too, Ron. There are not “hundreds” of citations. We looked for them, you and I.

Some time back on this list, there was a discussion largely between the WG1 chair,  Dr. Tami Bond, and myself on this topic.  No conclusion was reached.  But now we have the unfortunate situation that two separate ISO groups are saying different things.  I am told that (by far) the more important document is that from WG2.  It contains the above e3 equation - without any qualification.  I have been told that the WG1 report will make essentially no difference in the Tier ranking system - which is where the equation is of importance.

1) I am not WG1 chair. I am convener. My job is to make sure process is followed. Process includes providing evidence, not references to vast clouds of experts or dismissal of non-experts. No evidence was found to support this equation as a thermal efficiency, and the lack of evidence was presented to the group. The failure to produce evidence does not mean that “no conclusion was reached”— it means that there is no evidence. You don’t have to prove that an equation has no validity. You have to prove that it DOES have validity.

2) Thank you, Ron, for your confidence in WG1, and its lack of importance. Nevertheless WG1 is where the issues were actually debated, carefully. The definitions document will come out. In WG2 this meaning of efficiency was actually NOT debated, just used. I like to get the issues on the table and then make a decision. That is what we did. It took months, and that is why WG1 is not as far along as WG2. If you actually talk about the principles, it takes time.

3) I had a nice conversation with Jim Jetter, WG2 chair, about this issue after the discussion on stoves list last Feb. The “denominator equation”, as you call it, does tell you something (approximately: heat transfer efficiency, but not quite). What it does not tell you is how much fuel is used or saved unless a rather complex treatment is applied, and this treatment has not been described anywhere. Therefore, it can’t be used in fuel savings calculations— whether you insist on calling it a thermal efficiency, an exergy efficiency, or a rabbit in a hat. Jim and I agreed on that. Period. That sounds like a conclusion to me. Jim, if you are reading, correct me if you have a different impression of our discussion.

Tami

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170925/b3b06ee8/attachment.html>