[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Wed Sep 27 23:09:15 CDT 2017

Crispin and list

	Before responding,  I need to add a promised point on this topic about 1/3 the way down in a Crispin message in this thread from the 23rd.  He said, and my too-delayed responses are:

	 
> So the argument came down to, why is the char energy to be treated differently from other energy paths? There was no clear answer why it should be. Char produced can be a metric: mass delivered. The energy in the char recovered can also be a metric: char energy. No one has any problem with that. They are standard measures.
	[RWL1:   The answer to the first sentence is “Tiers”.      Agreed on the last part - I don’t think anyone is questioning the quantities being measured.  It is only one (e3=e1/(1-e2)) that gives reasonable answers and is used widely that is under dispute..       


> What is not standard is converting the energy in the recovered fuel into a mass of dry fuel equivalent and claiming that was the mass of fuel consumed, because that is a plain lie.
	[RWL2:  As near as I can tell,  Crispin has this 100% wrong.  The formula for e3 does exactly the opposite.  The “mass of dry fuel equivalent” is NOT “the mass of fuel consumed”.  It is what was NOT consumed.  The dominator term e2 is being subtracted from the input - not replacing it.  This is so fundamental a misunderstanding that I can’t believe it!   
		
 
> 
> However, that is not Ron’s ultimate goal. He wants to burn the char in the ground ‘to fight climate change’. In order to get this to happen, he wants to have the stoves rated as if the residual char contributes to increasing the reported fuel efficiency of the stove, as if the char is ‘fuel’ then turn around and bury it in the ground, rendering it useless as a fuel.
	[RWL3:  Crispin’s “burn” should of course be “bury”.   As I have said many times,  I am not increasing the reported stove efficiency, I am decreasing it.  In Crispin’s example from e3’=75% (which he never calculated or reported), I want to report that as e3=50% .


	I will try to finish up the other parts of my response to Crispin’s message of the 23rd soon.  More below from today.  For newcomers, the sentence Crispin starts with (>No one would…..) was a response I made to Dr. Philip Lloyd today.  I believe it is a common belief amongst those promoting TLUDs (Paul Anderson, etc).  The char is burning in the worst possible location for useful stove operation.  


> On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
>  
> >No one would ever want to run a TLUD without making char.  They do horribly in combusting the char.  
>  
> Our experiences differ.  We received stoves for testing the in CSI Pilot in Central Java that not only made char then burned it and the char could be forwarded to the next replication of the cooking sequence. Stoves that could do that were, according to the rules of engagement, tested with a fuel load that included recycled fuel from a previous burn, during all evaluations. Fuel consumption is the requirement for additional fuel sourced outside the cooking system needed to replicate a cooking sequence in any of a series of identical replications, save the first. The ‘save the first’ refers to stoves such as the TLUD’s that can burn charcoal, which can use remnant fuel in the next replication of the test. All stick-burning stoves were tested in this manner as well, if they could use partially combusted fuel.
	[RWL4:   I have no problem with taking the char from a TLUD and using it elsewhere.  As I have said elsewhere today, that is how I got into the TLUD business in about 1992.   But one certainly can’t advertise that every stove designer buy into that sales model IF they are trying to fight climate change.  I don’t think all test centers should have to run the produced through a second char-consuming stove;  We should be giving data on a single stove - not two stoves.
	Can you please give us some numbers for the measured data from some/any of these Java stoves?


> The lab staff in Yogyakarta, in spite of the relative simplicity of the lab, were able to get very tight groupings of test results even though the ‘forwarded fuel’ varied a bit in mass and composition.
	[RWL5:  Where can we see this data?

 
> It can be argued that the correct assessment for such a series of test replicates is to average the entire set into a single result, rather than ‘averaging’ the averages produced individually for each test. I favor this approach as it has a sound logical basis.
	[RWL6:  I don’t see this as helping our discussion on reporting TLUD thermal efficiencies - for Tier use.  Or - what am I missing here?

 
> 
> PL >>I am not certain of the physical meaning of the (1-e2) equation.
>                 >[RWL6:  I hope you will try to learn of its importance.  (Essentially important only in tier rankings.)  
>  
> Tier ranks have nothing to do with that equation.
	[RWL7:  I have just read the pending ISO material on Tiers (identified this way:  ISO DTR 19867-3 Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions - Harmonized laboratory test protocols - Part 3 Voluntary performance targets for cookstoves based on laboratory testing -  and as usually stated - I am not supposed to release it).  I can’t find the concept of a “denominator equation” in there, but it is throughout the main UBT report.   So I dispute your above assertion Tiers are not using the (1-e2) equation.  It is in EVERY report on tier rankings I have seen from anyone.


> The formula is a postulate with no sound physical basis. That is why no examples could be found outside the WBT using it as an efficiency calculation. Please refer to Tami’s recent categorical re-statement of her message earlier this year.
	[RWL8:   Agreed there is a dispute.  I am going with the many experts who use it without embarrassment in this latest version.  As I have said,  I think I have several other ways to justify it.  Having testers who have used char-making stoves give us more data should show its validity.  Anybody!!  -  please send in any data you have on this topic!!!

 
> 
> It is only ‘important’ to those who wish a 25% efficient stove to be reported as having an efficiency of 50%. It is more important that such pseudo-science be stopped in its tracks.
	RWL9.  I am sure you can’t find any place I have ever said anything like a doubling.  The example I have been using for its simplicity is e1 = 1/3 advancing to e3 = (1/3)/(1-1/3) = 1/2.   And this is (intentionally, but mainly for simplicity) on the high side of what is reported.

	I am afraid that some are so wedded to disproving the value and need of char in the ground that they will always see “pseudoscience”, even when it is almost unanimously supported by the experts in the main WBT (Group 2) document.  I am increasingly convinced that neither your nor Dr. Lloyd understand it at all.  (See my comment RWL2 above).  And you more than anyone are responsible for its unfortunate close-call handling by a small group in WG1.  

	I repeat, your and Dr.  Lloyd’s recent responses on the term (1-e2) show you have not understood either its intent or application.

Ron
	

>  
> Regards
> Crispin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170927/38e98dfb/attachment.html>