[Stoves] Triangular graphs to understand stove performance. (relating to First-ever international standard...)
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Wed Jul 4 23:28:32 CDT 2018
Ron,
Responses to several topics that you raised.
1. You wrote:
> *D is positive. It is what is left after subtracting A (the desired
> stove energy) and from B (the input fuel energy). The WBT reports A,
> B, and C. As you point out, it is easier to think B = 1, and A, C, D
> are then percentages.*
*B (the input fuel energy)**(think B = 1, and A, C, D are then
percentages.)*
*A (the desired stove energy) *( What do you mean by "desired"? Is it
not the actual energy that went into the cooking pot?)*
**C (the charcoal energy) ***this is removed when the charcoal is
collected after the cooking event..*
**D = inefficiency *(the heat that is lost or "not used")*
and B = A+C+D
*
**as can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a triangular diagram. *
*
2. Triangular graph. You wrote:
> *If someone sends me A, B, and C data - I'll send back the graphical
> version.*
No data for B. In a triangular graph, this would be "unity" of ONE
(the sum total of 3 variables that MUST add up to 100%) or better
stated as 100%.
In a triangular graph (which is equilateral with the base at the
bottom), there are 3 corners (apex), one for 100% of each of the 3
contributing variables that each "have one of the three sides" for
showing values from 0% to 100%. See the copied graph below, and put
C (for the energy of the charcoal) along the base edge, with 100%
charcoal at the lower right hand apex. I suggest that A (for the "good
energy" that is into the cooking activity) be on the right-hand slope
with its 100% of A being at the top apex. That puts D on the left
slope, with the lines being sloping downward. In the diagram, the dark
lines show an example of A = 35%, C = 50%, and D = 15% (Just an
example of how to read the graph, not representing any stove). Of
course, B = 100%.
>
> Triangular Graphs
>
> Triangular graphs are graphs with three axis instead of two, taking
> the form of an equilateral triangle. The important features are that
> each axis is divided into 100, representing percentage. From each axis
> lines are drawn at an angle of 60 degrees to carry the values across
> the graph. The data used must be in the form of three components.
>
> They are useful when identifying change over time, as a position changes.
>
> <https://sites.google.com/site/skillsa229/triangular-graphs/bp03-04i.gif?attredirects=0>
In this diagram, we will place C (for the charcoal energy) on the base
line that increases from left to right. A on the right slope thtat
increased upward, and D on the left slope that increases downward.
Ron, with this arrangement, you or anyone can put in actual or
hypothetical data sets that represent types of stoves. I bellieve that
the results will be of interest to all of us. I look forward to
further discussion.
**************************
Note by Paul: I do not know what e3 is or is not. Ron wrote:
>>> *And Crispin continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
>>> efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of
>>> what would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced. *
I read that and still do not know what e3 is or is not. Does it
matter?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 7/3/2018 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Paul and ccs
>
> Shanks for the positive response. See few inserts.
>
>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 6:31 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
>> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> Thanks for that well-stated reply. I hope that many readers will
>> digest what you have presented.
>>
>> My comments are restriced to only the discussion of equations and
>> their meanings. (How we arrive at 50 million char-making stoves is
>> a vastely dirrerent topic.)
>>
>> The explanation by equations might be better understood or at least
>> illustrated with a few sets of number based on actual stove typess
>> (see reference to the triangular graph mentioned in your message.).
>>
>> You wrote:
>>> *To repeat, the equation under discussion is used without apology
>>> throughout the new ISO 19867-1 document.
>>> *
>> Maybe give a few specific references / page numbers. But I for one
>> will not be checking that.
>>> *I believe I have stated that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in
>>> part because it is identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency
>>> and B = A+C+D - as can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a
>>> triangular diagram.
>>> *
>> Maybe it is time to show such a triangular diagram (in which any
>> position in the triangle shows the three numbers that total 100%).
>> What are the three components? You have 4 letteres A B C D.
>> and what does each one mean in the real world? I am trying to
>> understand the concept of D as "inefficiency", which is being added
>> to A, but D is a negative number .
> *[RWL1: D is positive. It is what is left after subtracting A (the
> desired stove energy) and C (the charcoal energy) from B (the input
> fuel energy). The WBT reports A, B, and C. As you point out, it is
> easier to think B = 1, and A, C, D are then percentages.*
> *
> *
> *D is perhaps the most important number of them all, and is rarely
> reported. All stovers are trying to make this number small.*
> *
> *
> *I spent many weeks trying to get something meaningful out of ordinary
> X, Y, Z orthogonal charts - and finally stumbled on the triangular
> plot. Googling for triangular plots via Excel gives a few choices (I
> haven't found one exactly right). If someone sends me A, B, and C
> data - I'll send back the graphical version.*
>
>> I am guessing that the produced charcoal (Just just happens to be
>> convieniently called "C") is zero for sstoves that do not produce
>> char and something like 20% if measured as weight or 30% if measured
>> as energy. Is this making sense? Please explain further.
> *RWL2: Yes that makes sense. But I hear 40% for energy is a
> possibility.*
>
>>> *And Crispin continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
>>> efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of
>>> what would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced. *
>> Further elaboration on that would be helpful.
> *[RWL3. I don't know more to say. Sorry. I'll look for someone
> else's description of the result of applying this equation. If not
> this one for entering a value in the Tiers, then what is the right
> equation?*
> *
> *
> *Ron*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Ron
> *
>>
>> Paul
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> Website:www.drtlud.com
>> On 7/3/2018 1:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> Nikhil, cc list and Crispin
>>>
>>> See inserts.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ron:
>>>>
>>>> A billion dollar question — what difference does all this make and
>>>> to whom?
>>>
>>> *[RWL1: I respond assuming by "all this" that you mean my 10
>>> responses to Crispin. Summarizing those 10 is relatively easy - the
>>> only (repeat *_*only)*_*sentence below (the second sentence I asked
>>> under RWL1) - to which Crispin did *_not_*later reply (61 minutes
>>> after yours - i.e. at 9:16 PM Mountain time): ** I said: "/Please
>>> explain what equation you would give for this answer for a stove
>>> that has intentionally made char."/*
>>> *//*
>>> *Since he chose not to give us an answer on the 28th, this will
>>> give him (and I hope you and others) another shot at an approach
>>> alternative to that in wide and continuing use. I expect no answer
>>> from Crispin, since he apparently disputes the validity of even
>>> trying. To repeat, the equation under discussion is used without
>>> apology throughout the new ISO 19867-1 document. I believe I have
>>> stated that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in part because it is
>>> identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency and B = A+C+D - as
>>> can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a triangular diagram.
>>> And Crispin continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
>>> efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of
>>> what would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced.
>>> I ask Crispin again to supply a better statement for what the
>>> efficiency would be if char had not been produced. Ot
>>> alternatively, what equation would he use to compare char-making
>>> stoves with all others?*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *The above was only to set the stage for my (and I hope to hear from
>>> others) answers to your important questions: "what differences and
>>> who cares". Tor me, the difference is largely in whether we are
>>> able to assign tiers. If you (anyone) don't think it important (or
>>> wise or permissible) to compare a char-making stove to a
>>> non-char-making stove, you (anyone) will reject tiers. It is much
>>> easier to reject tiers if you can discredit the equation (the only
>>> equation) that allows comparisons. The concept of tiers was
>>> endorsed (I think) unanimously in Lima some 5-6 years ago. And this
>>> question was known fully at that time. I think tiers are critical
>>> to stove improvement.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *I contend that even if there were no such thing as tiers, it would
>>> still be helpful to have this denominator equation - as the equation
>>> contains the terms showing exactly where the energy is distributed.
>>> If you don't measure the weight, you won't know the energy in the
>>> char - and you can have no idea of the true inefficiencies.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Lastly - "to whom": This equation and the tier system it allows
>>> is obviously important information to both buyers and sellers.
>>> Char-making started off (early 1990's) being interesting to me as a
>>> way of helping remove pressure on forests, where traditional
>>> char-making is often now illegal - because traditional char-making
>>> is so wasteful (and harmful to the environment in many ways). Next
>>> came a period of selling char-making stoves on health grounds -
>>> still the primary interest of many stove activists. Next came a
>>> period of realizing that stoves that make char are also time savers.
>>> And of course, my present emphasis on the carbon-negativity aspects
>>> of char-making stoves. I contend all of these positive attributes
>>> that follow from the simple equation A/(B-C) = A/(A+D) should be
>>> important to something approaching 100% of the global population.
>>> Who should not want a stove that accomplishes all those ends?*
>>> *(Aside - I learned this week of a char-making stove design that has
>>> MUCH larger turn-down ratio. In a month or so, we should all hear
>>> more.)*
>>> *
>>> *
>>>> And when will the cooks know?
>>> *[RWL2: Very shortly after we have international agreement on a
>>> tax/fee/subsidy available to technologies that are carbon negative.
>>> When do you think that might occur? I am guessing maybe five
>>> years. It will occur sooner wherever the benefits of biochar become
>>> better known (an example is what we have heard from Julian Winter in
>>> Bangladesh).*
>>> *But for sure there are cooks already who know - as in the Inyenyeri
>>> study with the Mimi Moto forced draft stove (see
>>> *https://www.inyenyeri.com/development and
>>> http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html), *and some recent
>>> reports on stove acceptance by Paul Anderson *(see
>>> http://www.drtlud.com/)*. The Inyenyeri cooks only knew part of the
>>> advantages of the stove - emphasizing cleanliness and time savings,
>>> but not money earnings (because the needed initial (not perpetual)
>>> subsidy or biochar advantage is not yet available..*
>>>
>>>> I am reminded of a classmate who sought to prove the instability of
>>>> capitalist system by showing the third derivative of the aggregate
>>>> production function was of the wrong sign.
>>> *[RWL3: I have no idea why this is in here. I talked many decades
>>> ago with Dennis Meadows and another author of "Limits to Growth".
>>> Believing the "Limits" story, I believe your classmate was off in
>>> the order of the derivative. Since I believe there is zero
>>> possibility of continuing ever onwards to an infinitely large GNP,
>>> without knowing anything about your classmate's project - I might
>>> guess the right answer is the first or second derivative, depending
>>> on what is being varied. The point of this answer is of course
>>> to emphasize the importance of char-making stoves to getting on to a
>>> sustainable path.*
>>> *What were you driving at with this story?*
>>> **
>>>
>>>> Assuming you are correct, when will the first 50 million clean
>>>> biomass stoves be exclusively used for two years and where?
>>> *[RWL4: I consider only the char-making stoves to be clean enough
>>> to worry about, so I answer only for char-makers, and accept your
>>> further stipulations of 50 Million and 2 years. This of course
>>> depends on my answer to your 2nd question on cooks understanding en
>>> masse the benefits of making (not using) charcoal. The current
>>> growth path for biochar is approximately doubling every two years.
>>> With a subsidy near $35/tonne CO2 (already seen in some times and
>>> places), then this will approximately allow a 6 month payback if the
>>> char can be sold for $200/ton of char (20 cents per kilo of char).*
>>> *I am not going to worry about your word "exclusively" - but rather
>>> that the char-maker is the primary stove - because it is the
>>> cheapest, cleanest, most time-saving stove and I see no reason for a
>>> rural low-income user (maybe 2 billion in that category) to use
>>> another. So my guess is about 10 doublings (ten years) to grow from
>>> about 50 thousand users to 50 million. We might be at 50,000 such
>>> stoves already, but will be shortly. It took PV about 50 years to
>>> reach cost parity (in the 1970's the cost was $100/Watt);
>>> char-making stoves are already much closer to cost parity. *
>>> *To check a bit - your 50 million stove number, multiplied by about
>>> 4 users per stoves and dividing by about 2 billion potential users
>>> is getting up to about 10% acceptance. I don't expect to stop at
>>> 10% when the user can make money (and save time, health bills,
>>> forests, etc). *
>>> **
>>> *Again, thanks for allowing me to make my sales pitch for both
>>> char-making stoves and biochar - based here on the importance of the
>>> equation (and WBT and tier structure) I have assumed you are asking
>>> about.*
>>>
>>> *Ron*
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nikhil
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Nikhil Desai
>>>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>>>> /Skype: nikhildesai888/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Ronal W. Larson
>>>> <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> List and Crispin:
>>>>
>>>> This is a partial response, due to press of other matters.
>>>>
>>>> Please see inserts.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>>>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ronal and All
>>>>> Just on comment:
>>>>> >>“I hope this standard is the last nail in the WBT coffin.”
>>>>> > *[RWL: I hope you are willing to change your mind on
>>>>> "coffin", per the above. What I do hope will soon be dead is
>>>>> the Chinese stove standard which says to
>>>>> treat intentionally-produced char the same as unburned fuel or
>>>>> ash. I think the same for the South African standard. I can
>>>>> think of no reasonable rationale for such a position.
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>> I think you may be misunderstanding something about how
>>>>> calculations are made in the ISO test method. One of the most
>>>>> important metrics for stove performance is assessing the
>>>>> amount of fuel fed into the stove in order to accomplish a
>>>>> task such as baking 1000 cookies or boiling 200 ears of corn.
>>>>> The metric is “Fuel Fed” (please see the list of definitions).
>>>> *RWL1: I suggest you misunderstand my misunderstandings.
>>>> Please explain what equation you would give for this answer for
>>>> a stove that has intentionally made char. I think you are
>>>> suggesting here in this answer (and below) that there is
>>>> nothing wrong with the present Chinese approach to pay zero
>>>> attention to intentionally produced char. True?*
>>>>
>>>>> The mass of fuel fed was carefully written to capture the
>>>>> quantity of fuel needed to accomplish some cooking task.
>>>>> Whether the stove produces char or not is a secondary point.
>>>>> IT is easy to report the amount of char produced, and there
>>>>> are metrics for doing so. It is the amount of char produced
>>>>> per kg or per dry kg of fuel fed.
>>>> *[RWL2: You leave out that it is not at all easy to provide
>>>> the energy (not the weight) of that char. Both are of interest.*
>>>>> Importantly, the cheating that has been taking place using the
>>>>> WBT is not brought to an end. If I look for the amount of fuel
>>>>> fed into the stove per replication of some task, be it the
>>>>> standard one or a relevant one, I will find the amount of fuel
>>>>> needed to do so. If there is a secondary product such as
>>>>> condensate, char, heat that can be used for a secondary
>>>>> purpose such as space heating, or electricity, these are all
>>>>> recorded in an appropriate manner.
>>>> *[RWL3: Is now and was in the WBT 4.2.3 and earlier versions.
>>>> Cites on cheating have not been produced to my knowledge.*
>>>>> The cheat that was with us for so long, claiming as the
>>>>> WBT1.x, 2.x, 3.x and 4.x that a stove did not consume fuel
>>>>> because it emerged from the cooking session in the form of
>>>>> char, is gone, thankfully. Please refer again to the definitions.
>>>> *[RWL4: This is erroneous. Please give the (exact)
>>>> language anywhere that suggests the "did not consume" .
>>>> Please don't ask others to go find something they don't believe
>>>> exists.*
>>>>
>>>>> That ‘char deducted’ formula that you refer to is an energy
>>>>> calculation that relates to the fraction of energy in the fuel
>>>>> fed that was released (theoretically) during cooking. It no
>>>>> longer refers to the mass of fuel fed, as it once did.
>>>> *[RWL5: This paragraph makes no sense. There is no
>>>> theoretical release in the equation being used to give a number
>>>> to allow comparing char-making stoves with those that don't.
>>>> All the numbers going into that computation are given and all
>>>> have been in theist WBTs I know about. In the Chinese official
>>>> test procedure, the char is wished away.*
>>>>> This is a major advance in testing methods. Only the stove
>>>>> testing groups used the erroneous ‘char-deducted’ formula.
>>>>> When searching the literature for some example elsewhere in
>>>>> industry, not a single one could be found because the claim
>>>>> was fundamentally misrepresentative. That has now been cleared up.
>>>> *[RWL6: Again a paragraph that makes no sense. Please give
>>>> exact language from anywhere on what you are talking about. I
>>>> think it is the "denominator equation" - which still exists in
>>>> the latest ISO version - I think adopted with essentially a
>>>> unanimous vote of many countries (not individuals).*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>> The remaining mentions of the WBT are for PR purposes only.
>>>>> Not a single voice supporting the use of a “WBT-like” test was
>>>>> raised in the ISO process. In fact it was put to a vote in
>>>>> exactly that form, in those words: “WBT-like”. No one wanted
>>>>> it. Now, it is only for the organisations who supported the
>>>>> WBT for so long to be given enough space for them to quietly
>>>>> drop it while pretending that it was a valid method all along.
>>>>> To do otherwise would be to admit they were cheating donors.
>>>>> We do not have to extract that pound of flesh.
>>>> *[RWL7: This is a long way from what others have told me
>>>> occurred. So I will break here to hear from others (who I hope
>>>> can also join in). *
>>>> *It would help this list to have your explanation of how you
>>>> know what to be true.*
>>>>> The ISO Standard is not anyone’s standard – it only has
>>>>> meaning when a country adopts it, or adapts it. Any country
>>>>> contemplating adopting this document as a national standard
>>>>> will have to consider how it will be implemented, and whether
>>>>> all of it or some of it will apply. When it comes to things
>>>>> like fuel efficiency, which is important in some regions, it
>>>>> is likely the national standards body will apply its
>>>>> collective mind to what portions of this massive document they
>>>>> will use. As anyone reading it will quickly see, it is
>>>>> unnecessarily complex, and requires numerous pieces of
>>>>> equipment that are very expensive if one is to have a
>>>>> reasonable level of confidence in the result. Because a
>>>>> national standard provides a warranty of performance, it is
>>>>> pointless to have as a test method something that doesn’t
>>>>> provide it.
>>>> *[RWL8: I claim none of this paragraph is true. I have
>>>> skimmed it; Crispin says he has not. A country that chooses
>>>> to ignore a work that has taken such effort will lose a lot of
>>>> credibility in science circles. This took many years to balance
>>>> complexity with completeness.*
>>>>> People seeking lower cost and more accurate alternatives may
>>>>> consider adapting Indian IS–13152, China’s NB/T 43008 – 2012,
>>>>> or the CSI test method which has been used internationally in
>>>>> some form since 2009.
>>>> *[RWL9: I repeat my claim that Crispin has kindly repeated
>>>> above: **/ "I can think of no reasonable rationale for such a
>>>> position." / **To report results on a stove designed to make
>>>> char without measuring the char, because the national standard
>>>> says so, is unbelievable. That couldn't happen if offending
>>>> countries adopt the new ISO procedure.*
>>>>>
>>>>> The WBT 4.2.3 contained, when it does, some 75 systematic
>>>>> errors as well as its much-discussed conceptual errors. We do
>>>>> not know yet how many are contained in the ISO-19867-1 because
>>>>> it has not been reviewed conceptually or systematically.
>>>>> Because the test method is novel, (untested) problems with its
>>>>> implementation will have to be resolved at the national
>>>>> adoption level, if it turns out to be acceptable ahead of
>>>>> other options.
>>>> *[RWL8: I have asked for this "75" list several times and do
>>>> so again. The ISO document that is being discussed _has_
>>>> undergone agonizing review - by top experts.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>> The problems created by the WBT remain, however, as witnessed
>>>>> by the recent release of the second edition of the
>>>>> Micro-gasifier Handbook which makes barley any mention of
>>>>> testing and includes multiple references to ‘performance’
>>>>> based on the obviously erroneous fuel consumption claims of
>>>>> the WBT.
>>>> *[RWL9: How about a specific cite and example quotes? I
>>>> claim it quite likely that there is zero error in
>>>> the consumption claims.*
>>>>> For anyone who is new to this topic I recommend reading the
>>>>> CREEC Lab test of the Quad II stove (featured in that
>>>>> Handbook) which shows that the fuel fed per replication of the
>>>>> test is 1.3 kg (as received) and claims a dry wood fuel
>>>>> consumption of 636 g. I will read it again, but I think the
>>>>> handbook does not address this issue squarely and it must in
>>>>> the next edition. Char production is a secondary benefit and
>>>>> can negatively affect the fuel consumption rate. Advocates
>>>>> should not shy away from discussing it. A good example of how
>>>>> to handle secondary benefits is heating stoves, which are
>>>>> assessed on the basis of the cooking provided, the heat
>>>>> provided, and the combination. Where char is an additional
>>>>> secondary benefit, it should also be listed in the form of
>>>>> carbon mass, if it is for sequestering, energy, if it is for
>>>>> fuel, or total surface per gram if it is for “activated” uses.
>>>> *[RWL10: Crispin here totally misses everything possible about
>>>> char-making stoves. More on this if he wishes and gives cites
>>>> so we don't waste more time on something agreed upon in the new
>>>> ISO test procedures. *
>>>>
>>>> *Measuring char-making capabilities of a cook stove that excels
>>>> in emissions and other ways is probably a real problem if one
>>>> is into coal-consuming heating stoves.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *Ron*
>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Crispin
>>>>> ISO TC-285 WG1, WG2, WG3, WG4.
>>>>> P-member SABS TC-1043__
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> 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
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>> 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
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180704/def125bd/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list