[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

[Ronal W. Larson]

Xavier, Kirk and list

	see below


> On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:53 PM, <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
>  
> I don’t think the new ISO standard includes the WBT, I think you are the only person claiming that.

	[RWL:  I guess you will trust what the South Africa group thinks on this subject.  They failed in a fight to remove the WBT. 

	 I could send a copy of what has been approved - but that would violate the agreement I made to be part of the process.  

	I assure you that I have plenty of company - and it will appear soon.  

	What Nikhil has is possibly/probably 99% of the final.

>  
> Until there exists reviews of the WBT protocol demonstrating it is valid, the « cites for inadequacy that are very old » (some are from 2016 and 2017) will be the only proofs there is.
>  
> « [RWL3:   Can you give cites on these three sentences?  Maybe from some group that treats char as waste? »
> See the table from Riva and al., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for
> improved and traditional three – Stone fire cookstoves below, this is with the WBT:
>  
> <image001.png>
> Some of the stoves tested were « Micro-Gasifier Stoves with FAN »
>  
> « [RWL4:   I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or char-making. »

	RWL:  I agree that the word micro-gasifier was there.  They still were only arguing for more tests - that I still claim aren't worth the extra effort.  Too much depends on the operator of the test.   But that is not sufficient reason to drop the test.  Just be satisfied if you and other groups can get within a few percent.

Ron

> See above.
>  
> « They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is un-needed and wasteful of time and money. »
> Only with the WBT I believe. I don’t think the CSI protocol needs more test sessions.
>  
> Everyone,
> Is there a way we could get our hands on the documents of the new ISO standard, and share it with everyone on the List?
> Could we crowdpay it for example, and leave it on a website or a server for everyone to see?
>  
> I think it is really a shame that the document is behind a paywall.
>  
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
>  
>  
> De : Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> 
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 juillet 2018 21:33
> À : Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>>; Kirk Harris <kgharris at sonic.net <mailto:kgharris at sonic.net>>
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests
>  
> List, Xavier and Kirk
>  
>                 The main item not being discussed below is the recently approved (with a huge majority by a lot of stove experts - after years of debate) new ISO test procedures.  To me this proves conclusively that the WBT is fine.  Giving cites for inadequacy that are very old is no proof of anything.
>  
>  
>> On Jul 26, 2018, at 12:51 PM, <xav.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> <xav.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Dear Kirk,
>>  
>> “A well designed TLUD type stove will do well, whatever test it is given.”
>                 RWL1:   Kirk - I have to disagree.  There are tests (especially one used in China) that treat char as waste - and so don't measure the produced char.  I guarantee that TLUDs will look bad on those tests.
> 
> 
>> Will it for sure? I have not tested nor seen tests of TLUD stoves myself, nor read that much about TLUD testing.
>                 [RWL2:  I gave a cite yesterday to a paper by Jetter et al, that is on testing.  Clearly the best performing stoves there were TLUDs and fan-powered (also TLUD principles).  To repeat - see
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648.7709&rep=rep1&type=pdf <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648.7709&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
> 
>>  
>> “A lesser performing type stove will accordingly do less well, whatever test it is given.”
>> No.
>> It might perform great sometimes with the WBT. Then terrible. Then great. Then quite ok.
>> Then it might perform great or terrible in the field.
>> There is too much variability and unreliability.
>                 [RWL3:   Can you give cites on these three sentences?  Maybe from some group that treats char as waste?
> 
>> Have you read Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi papers?
>                 [RWL4:   I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or char-making.  They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is un-needed and wasteful of time and money.
>  
>                 I'll stop here - to give time on the above.
>  
> Ron

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180727/0900c9bd/attachment.html>