<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1: Would you agree with the following
statements?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>a: A "Stove" is a device with the primary purpose of
heating and/or cooking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>b: A "Retort" is a device with the primary purpose of
producing char and pyrolysis gases</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>c: A "Gasifier" is a device with the primary purpose of
converting a solid fuel into a fuel gas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>d: A "Mixed Function system" (such as a TLUD) is a device
that provides both a heating and/or cooking function plus residual
char.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2: If you agree with those basic definitions, would you
not agree that a device attempting to do "2 jobs in one" cannot do either job as
efficiently or effectively as if the device was designed to do "one job the
best?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>3: Would you agree that the Customer who buys the "device"
should have the benefit of "true science based tests" that are repeatable
by others?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>4: Would you agree that the Customer is the one who
decided whether or not he should purchase a "mixed feature device" that produces
char, but requires more fuel input, in contrast to a Stove that requires less
fuel input for the same cooking and/or heating effect?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>5: Would you agree that the testing protocols for the
above "devices" should be such that the Customer should be able to compare the
various devices and then select the "device" that best meets
his wishes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin Chisholm</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rongretlarson@comcast.net
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> ; <A title=crispinpigott@gmail.com
href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=jetter.jim@epa.gov
href="mailto:jetter.jim@epa.gov">jetter jim</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 22, 2013 8:13
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for
complete sets of raw dataof cookstove tests.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<STYLE>p { margin: 0; }</STYLE>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Crispin,
Jim, and List<BR><BR>See few comments below<BR><BR>
<HR id=zwchr>
<B>From: </B><BR><B>To: </B>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <<A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</A>><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Monday, April 22, 2013 8:47:51 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [Stoves] FW:
REQUEST for complete sets of raw data
of cookstove tests.<BR><BR>
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Dear Jim and Anyone watching</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>I won't have time to dig through the messages on this
thread that were in limbo. If something is really important to someone, ask
again.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>With regard to the char remaining and the wood that has
been burned on one end (fuel left over from tests) Harold Annegarn and I have
a proposal for how to deal with stoves that can use fuel remaining from a
previous burn. In principle, the test should be started with the fuel left
over from a previous test. In other words a cooking task that is replicated a
number of times in which the fuel left over goes into the stove for the
subsequent task provides an opportunity to measure (quite accurately) the raw
fuel drawn from the pile.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>
<B>[RWL1: I suggest that any test has to account for stoves
being used to BOTH cook AND make char</B>. I don't sense you will concur
with this variation.<B> Or can you?</B></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B> I believe that forcing the reuse
of char in many/most char-making stoves will not be the way the char will
normally be used - and therefore will give erroneous results.</B><BR></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Any charcoal that is not being discarded and all
partially burned, dried, blackened stoves that are claimed to be useable fuel,
not discarded, should be used. If new fuel is needed (which it will be) then
that new fuel is raw fuel. It becomes quite a simple matter to measure
how much new fuel is required for each identical replication of a task.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> <B>[RWL2: I guess
there may be a few cooks who "discard" char - but that is not my
experience. As long as the procedures call for reporting it both ways,
(as I gather from Jim Jetter remarks today) this suggestion probably helps
promote char-making stoves.</B></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B> Not sure what was intended above
in " blackened stoves" - maybe "blackened fuel"?<BR></B></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B> With char-making stoves, there
needs to be consideration to fuel that was either not or only partially
pyrolyzed. That material needs to be highlighted and perhaps handled as
"lost energy" - similar to that not captured by the cookpot. But
similarly to subtracting char energy in the denominator of an efficiency
computation, this energy could be subtracted. It is certainly not lost
forever. It is possibly ideal for starting the next time. It is
not clear that such un-pyrolyzed material is now being handled properly,
(I see no term for subtracting ths unused energy as I do for char energy - but
I need to look at that again.).<BR></B></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B></B> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>The issue is discussed in the attached document in '1.
Replications'.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>A number of definitions are provided in the subsequent
sections that are useful for discussing tests and efficiencies.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Importantly, if a stove cannot use any of the fuel
remaining (an example might be a TLUD wood burner that makes a high % of char)
the energy in the remaining fuel cannot legitimately be counted as cooking
fuel - because it can't be used <I>in that stove</I> for cooking.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> <B>[RWL: So it s not
clear what you propose n this case. I disagree if you mean to say char
should count in no way at all. The stove developer intent will
probably have been primarily to BOTH cook and make char. Ignoring the
char then makes no sense. But repeat - I don't know what you
are then recommending.</B>]</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><BR></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>It then becomes and easy matter to determine the raw
fuel consumption per cycle for that task.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> <B>[RWL: Maybe easy - but also
not helpful in comparing stoves designed for more than cooking.</B>]</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B><BR></B></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><B> [RWL: You have not mentioned
adding some tests related to operator time commitments. Certainly
important to most cooks.</B><BR></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><BR></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Regards</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Crispin</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><SPAN style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA"
lang=EN-US>-----Original Message-----<BR><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>To All,</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Resending my comment below, even though we've moved on
in the conversation, because I've just learned my comment didn't post to the
listserv the first time, and I wanted to make sure people know EPA is
currently working on a way to share raw data - we'd be very happy to be able
to share this information with the community.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Jim</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Dear Paul,</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>It was good to see you again in Phnom Penh, and I wish
we had had more time to talk, but I hope you'll accept my invitation to visit
us soon in North Carolina. I understand you believe stove testing is an
extremely important issue, and we completely agree on that point!</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>You requested raw data to help with ".finding out if
results from sub-optimal earlier versions of WBT can be re-processed
(processed forward) to be compatible with version 4.2.1." Our (EPA)
testing in 2010 was based on Version 4.1.2. Changes made in the WBT data
calculation spreadsheet between Versions 4.1.2 and 4.2.1 are documented at the
web site:</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><A href="http://community.cleancookstoves.org/files/354"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none">http://community.cleancookstoves.org/files/354</SPAN></A></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>The documented changes made in the WBT calculation sheet
between Versions 4.1.2 and 4.2.1 do not make any difference in results from
our testing in 2010. We can discuss each change that was made in the
calculation sheet, and I can explain why it doesn't affect our previous
results. Changes made between versions might affect results from some
other stove-testing labs.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>As Crispin has pointed out, one thing that would make a
big difference in results is how "remaining char" is handled in the
calculations, but this has not been changed in the WBT protocol or
spreadsheet. Crispin and I have previously discussed this offline as
well as on the stoves listserv, and I think Crispin and I agree that if
remaining char is discarded in practice, then the calculations in the WBT
should reflect that practice. This is an issue for the next revision of
the WBT, and it would especially affect results for charcoal-producing stoves
(such as charcoal-producing TLUDs). Meanwhile, we (EPA) will report
future results per the current WBT protocol (energy in remaining char gets
full credit in energy calculations), and we will also report results for the
discarded-char scenario (energy in remaining char gets no credit).</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Results from our 2010 testing showed that a
charcoal-producing TLUD stove burning wood-pellet fuel had very high thermal
efficiency compared to all other stoves tested. But if the remaining
char is discarded, the efficiency for the TLUD would be significantly
lower. We haven't seen a need to report efficiency with discarded char
for that TLUD prototype we tested, because that stove has not been
manufactured or disseminated, but for the two TLUD-type stoves included in the
ongoing round of testing, we will report results both ways - char discarded
and not discarded.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Back in October 2011, Crispin and I spent some good time
comparing results from Crispin's proposed (for Version 4) WBT spreadsheet and
our (EPA) spreadsheet - I still have the record of our email
correspondence. We generally found agreement between results, and we
were able to explain some minor differences in results. Rather than
rehash old data now, I think it's much more productive to continue to work
cooperatively together to do the challenging work ahead of us to: (1) refine
existing protocols, (2) develop new protocols, as needed, and (3) build up the
network of Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>I think the Alliance (Ranyee) is doing a fine job
facilitating an inclusive open process for moving forward - great discussions
and progress in Phnom Penh!</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>We (at EPA) are working hard on a process (meeting EPA
QA and review requirements) that will enable us to effectively share the raw
data along with results from our ongoing round of stove testing. Hope
this will be helpful.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Please call me if you would like to discuss this
further.</P>
<P class=MsoPlainText> </P>
<P class=MsoPlainText>Sincerely,</P>
<P
class=MsoPlainText>Jim</P></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves
mailing list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>