[Stoves] Effects of biomass pellet composition on the thermal and emissions performances of a TLUD cooking stove

Sat Aug 18 22:30:06 CDT 2018

Dear Ron

Taken in order:

>I was disappointed in this article.

I am disappointed that you are disappointed. These fuels are proposed as substitutes for wood to the extent that are available. Very little work has been done investigating emissions from any small stoves. Or at all.

>1.  A TLUD with zero measurement of char production - makes no sense.  

That depends on the culture. Apparently in your culture they measure char. Why do you think there was any char at all? The purpose of the stove is to burn the fuel and cook, not produce char.

>2.  Said to be a popular stove.  I find it inconceivable that users routinely do what is done here - count all char as waste. 

They don't routinely do anything with any residual char. Who says there was wasted char?  Lots of people don't want char. They want cooking with as little fuel as possible because they have to buy it.

>The name of the stove is not given. 

The name is irrelevant. 

>This should be about a Tier 0 or Tier 1 stove as listed by an efficiency computation of about 15%.  

Some people are worried about fuel efficiency, some about emission, some about cooking power.  In China most cooking is doing at high power. Most complaints about stoves are  about the lack of cooking power. 

>3.  Mention is made of the importance of density - but no densities are provided.   

I think that is an omission that could have been filled: first the density of the pellets, and then the bulk density. 

>There is talk of pellets absorbing water easily.

That is an important observation - more important than the density. Some pellets do not absorb water easily. 

>4.  One of the fuels (the one with the highest moisture content) is listed as having an energy density >21 MJ/kg;  I've never seen one that high.

So you have learned something informative about peanut shell pellets. The energy density is reported AD (After drying). That is indeed the energy content. Perhaps there is vegetable oil in it.

>5.  Figures 5 and 6 are identical - and the texts don't match with the figures.  Maybe 6 is the one in error - but who knows?

Perhaps? The Figure label clearly states that it is supposed to be a cooking power chart and it shows efficiency. That is a publisher's error.  I have requested the correct chart so I can share it here.

>6.  Several examples of not agreeing with other authors (including Jim Jetter - maybe also "James"?) - but no explanations/rationales for the differences.

So what? Why should articles agree with any particular author?  The researchers in this case described the purpose of the experiment, the apparatus and the calculations used. The results are presented and discussed.  That is how scientific results are presented.  Surely you don't expect them to write an agreeable conclusion first and then conduct experiments hoping to show it?

Apart from your correctly identifying a printer's error, I believe we can safely move on to the next topic.

Regards
Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 47409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180819/d71ba724/attachment.bin>