<!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>Ron</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<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=kchisholm@ca.inter.net
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">Kevin Chisholm</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> Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:49
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for
complete sets of raw data ofcookstovetests.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Kevin:<BR><BR>
1. All of your analysis below is faulty because you are basing it all on
the 2nd faulty strawman proposition given in your series of queries on
the 22nd. (The other questions, I would of course answer "Yes"
- No one on this list has ever proposed mandating a specific stove
type.) </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
would have to disagree with you here. You yourself are asking Jim to modify
his proposed stove testing protocol to show "Char making stoves" in a more
favourable light! </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> You
asked me on the 22nd:<BR><BR> "<I><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></I><BR><BR> 2. The answer here is
possibly also always yes, but it is the wrong question for anyone (repeat
anyone) to be using. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
agree with you that the correct answer to my question is "Possibly yes", but
would suggest that an even better answer is "Yes". In all my years of
designing stuff, I have always found that I had to make "design sacrifices" in
some areas in order to get an "optimal design." However, I would have to
disagree with you about it being the wrong question. The only way that it
could be wrong is if EVERYONE had the same "Stove circumstances".
</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>For
example:</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Portability or not.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Efficient or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Electric power available or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Flue permissable or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>* Low
first cost or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Appearance important or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Collapsibility for ease of shipment or not.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>* Low
emissions or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Space heating or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Oven or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Simmering feature or not.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Multiple pot cooking</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Stable or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Children consideratiions or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
"Hold fire characteristics" important or not.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Griddle or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Direct or indirect contact of pot with source of heat</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
View of fire or not</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>*
Need I go on or not?</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Clearly,
when designing a stove, one must strive to maximize the features of greatest
interest and importance to the Stove Customer.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> One
better question for most stove purchasers is what costs the least (in a life
cycle sense - including more than first cost)? </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
That is one of many considerations. It is not a "better
question."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> More
likely it will involve half a dozen decision criteria, including questions of
time saved, health impacts, mental satisfaction because a unit looks good, is
safer to use, a moral obligation to help the environment, save forests, remove
atmospheric CO2, etc, etc. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Good points!! You can add them to the above list of "Stove
Circumstances."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> This
list gets longer the more you consider non-purchaser externalities like global
warming. GACC and Jetter must consider those. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Agreed.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> You
may be the only one on this list who propounds the theory that a stove testing
report should be based only (repeat only) on how little fuel can be used to
boil 5 liters of water - with zero consideration on char.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
have to disagree with you again, in that I never said that either. What I am
advocating is "Lets at least set up a "Stove Testing Protocol" that gives
scientifically correct answers." Please understand my position before you
tell others what it is.<BR><BR></STRONG> 3. Many of us have
been promoting char-making stoves for individual (not societal) non-energy
reasons that you also state need not be considered
<BR> - able to save money through
sale or use of the char<BR> - save
time and money by using closer non-wood
fuels<BR> - cleaner kitchen (and
neighborhood outdoor-air) environment, so lower health-related
costs<BR> - save time by less fire
tending</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
think it is about time for you to make a Public Retraction. Please show the
List where I said that the above factors do not need to be considered, or
retract your erroneous statement.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>I
would comment that I have supported Paul Oliver with his Proposal to utilize
char making stoves in Vietnam. I am 100% supportive of the use of char making
stoves where they are appropriate and where the Customer wants them. Equally,
I am 100% against char making stoves where they are inappropriate and
when they do not best serve the Customer's needs.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>I
await your Public Retraction of your erroneous
statement..<BR><BR></STRONG> 4. Giving a user a new
char-based efficiency number in addition to the standard stove efficiency
number hardly seems earth shattering.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># You
may wish to change that term to "Char Based Inefficiency", in that any well
designed stove system producing char, or unburned fuel, is inherently
less efficient than any well designed stove system that burns the
fuel to completion and that does not produce char.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">.<BR><BR>
5. To show some examples of where your single motivation theory goes
wrong:</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Could you please clarify what you feel is my "single
motivation"?<BR></STRONG><BR> a. I
could buy one cell phone, I-Pad, etc or three - each of which is a little
faster or cheaper for doing computations, communicating, or writing
text. Combining multiple functions in one device wins for most of
us.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
What about the Customer who only wants a Calculator? "Different strokes for
different Customer
Folks." <BR></STRONG><BR> b. I
can build large electric power plants and separate thermal units, each of
which are more efficient than the now increasingly popular (and overall
cheaper) CHP (combined heat and power) units. There is also literature
on CHPB, with B for biochar. Some governmental jurisdictions are
mandating the multiple function, less wasteful energy approach. We are
talking themodynamcs here- minimizing waste (especially in the
production of char in the boondocks).</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Thermodynamics is about energ flows. Thermodynamics is about efficiency. Your
statement about "minimizing waste is very ambiguous... are you talking about
waste, in teh sense of heat that can be recovered from existing thermodynamic
processes, OR are you talking about so-called "wastes as a source of energy",
as in sawdust, rice husks, etc?
<BR><BR></STRONG> c. I can store and
retrieve electric energy from plug in electric vehicles for grid backup - or
build large (single-purpose) pumped hydro or large central battery
storage. The former multi-battery-use approach is projected to save a
lot of money.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># ?
How does this relate to "Stove
Testing"?<BR></STRONG> <BR>
6. So I don't see any need to comment on anything you wrote
below. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Hopefully, others will get value from the comments below.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> Especially
when all I was doing was agreeing with Jim Jetter. - in EVERY step he
outlined.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
would draw your attention to:</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(Jim)
" I’m not in favor of doing this, because, while there is a common
denominator, I think the numerators are like apples and oranges – cooking
(useful) energy and fuel (stored) energy.<BR>
<B>[RWL6: I agree they are apples and oranges. But sometimes
the question is asked - how much "fruit" do you have and in
this example the answer is certainly E4 = 0.5. As long as the
number "E3=0.2" is given a little prominence, I don't care if the number
E4 = 0.5 is also given. I expect promotional char-makers will be using
both E3 and E4, of course.</B> "</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
and</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">"
<B>[RWL7: I have no problem with this, which we can call E5.
What I would object to is always trying to put the char back in the same stove
where it was made. Or if that is somehow mandated, at least also do a
"best" different char-using stove as well, for what we call E5.
Call the char combustion in the same (non-optimum) stove combination E6.
That is apt to be in your example about
E6=(3+0.5)/10=0.35]</B><BR> <B>I defend being able to
combine apples (carbon neutrality) and oranges (carbon negativity) because
they are at least equally important (I am leaning towards
oranges).</B> "</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># It
does not look like you and Jim are on agreement on this point. </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># Or
this point either:</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>"</STRONG>
(Jim)<STRONG> </STRONG>- Thermal efficiency for the “discarded” char
scenario <BR><STRONG> [RWL9:
E2.</STRONG> <STRONG> Fine. It helps to compare with and note
there is an E3. For sure, the char-producing stove people will not
want this called "discarded". How about "cookpot-only"?]
"<BR></STRONG><BR><STRONG>In closing, I would appreciate your retraction, as
requested above. It is bad form to bad mouth people
irresponsibly.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Kevin</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Ron<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR id=zwchr>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B>From:
</B>"Kevin" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><BR><B>To: </B>"Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>, "James
Jetter" <Jetter.Jim@epa.gov><BR><B>Cc: </B>"Discussion of biomass
cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:24:58 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [Stoves] FW:
REQUEST for complete sets of raw
data ofcookstove tests.<BR><BR>
<STYLE>P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial>Please see my comments inserted below, starting with #
</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; 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"
target=_blank>rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=Jetter.Jim@epa.gov
href="mailto:Jetter.Jim@epa.gov" target=_blank>James Jetter</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target=_blank>Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:27
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for
complete sets of raw data ofcookstove tests.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Jim:
(cc "Stoves")<BR><BR> Thanks. A few comments
inserted below<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR id=zwchr>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B>From:
</B>"James Jetter" <<A href="mailto:Jetter.Jim@epa.gov"
target=_blank>Jetter.Jim@epa.gov</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net"
target=_blank>rongretlarson@comcast.net</A>, "Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves" <<A href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
target=_blank>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</A>><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:37:53 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>RE: [Stoves] FW:
REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of
cookstove tests.<BR><BR>Ron,<BR><BR>It
was great talking with you in Phnom Penh.<BR>
<B>[RWL1: Agreed. I think you and GACC are to be much commended
for that Conference coming off well. If anyone from GACC can tell us
if Ppts (especially yours) will be available, that would be
helpful.</B><BR><BR>Let’s discuss a hypothetical example. We start
with a batch of biomass fuel that contains 10 MJ of (potentially available)
energy. After burning the batch of fuel in a certain stove, 2 MJ
remains in unburned char, 3 MJ went into the cooking process (pot), and 5 MJ
was “lost.”<BR><BR>Thermal efficiency is calculated per the WBT protocol as:
3 / (10 – 2) = 0.375<BR> <B>[RWL2: For later
use, lets call this E1. See also a later note about possibly
needing to subtract energy in unconverted
wood.]</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># I would disagree with this approach, in that
the 2 MJ of char energy is just as lost to the stove test, as is the 5 MJ
loss.</FONT></STRONG><BR><BR>If the char is “discarded,” then thermal
efficiency can be calculated as: 3 / 10 = 0.3 <B>[RWL3
E2]</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># Whether the char is discarded or not is a situation outside of
what happens within the stove system. The "Stove Test" should should report
on stove performance, and should not be encumbered by factors outside the
stove being tested. </FONT> </STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR>The thermal efficiency for char production can be calculated as: 2
/ 10 = 0.2 <B>[RWL4:
E3]</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># I would suggest that</FONT> <FONT face=Arial>this term is
rather meaningless. If you could tell us how much energy was required to
actually make char containing the 2 MJ of energy, and the theoretically
required energy to make char, then one would have a valid term for
"Thermal Efficiency for Char Production. The 2 MJ is simply the energy
content of the char, and in no way reflects the energy required to make
it. As defined above it is really "% of input energy unavailable for
use because of char production".</FONT></STRONG>
<DIV><BR><BR>I think you are proposing to add the thermal efficiencies for
cooking and char production: ( 3 / 10 ) + ( 2 / 10 ) =
0.5<BR> <B>[RWL5: Right - E4=
E2+E3]</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial>#</FONT> <FONT face=Arial>As just noted, "Thermal
Efficiency of Char Production" is a flawed concept.</FONT></STRONG>
<DIV><BR><BR>I’m not in favor of doing this, because, while there is a
common denominator, I think the numerators are like apples and oranges –
cooking (useful) energy and fuel (stored) energy.<BR>
<B>[RWL6: I agree they are apples and oranges. But
sometimes the question is asked - how much "fruit" do you
have and in this example the answer is certainly E4 = 0.5.
As long as the number "E3=0.2" is given a little prominence, I don't care if
the number E4 = 0.5 is also given. I expect promotional
char-makers will be using both E3 and E4, of
course.</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># The "energy loss to char" can be given prominence in the test
report. This will tell customers who do not want char how little it makes,
and it will allow Promotional Char Makers to "fine tune their char making
stove system" to maximize char production. "The Stove Test should test the
Stove Device submitted for testing, and should report on what it found." It
should be up to the Promotional Char-makers to add the "Yes buts...",
like "Yes the overall stove efficiency is low, but look at all the char it
makes."</FONT></STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR> <B> In a good stove, we are apt to see E2=
3, E3= 4, and only 3 lost (lets label this Elost.) I want
those promoting the E3= 4 in char energy to be proud of, and promote, the
E2=3 in cookpot energy. Way too much char is now being produced with
E2=0.</B></DIV><B></B></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG># That may be fine for Customers wanting char, but a
"stove" is a device intended primarily for cooking and/or heating. Consider
the case of a mal-functioning wood pellet stove intended for space heating.
Assume its flaw was that it blew the charred pellets out of the combustion
zone and into the ash pit. With your proposed Efficiency Rating, the
ash pit carbon loss would be given full credit for having been burned, as it
would have been burned in a properly functioning pellet stove. Your "Energy
Efficiency Rating System" would cause great confusion.</STRONG></FONT>
<DIV><BR><BR><STRONG> Note I intentionally did not drop
the E2 value as I increased E3. Some char-making stoves are claiming
that is possible. So my (not-to-be-calculated) E4 would be 0.7.
To stop forest degradation we have to emphasize this combination is
possible]</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># The purpose of a stove is Cooking and/or
heating, not saving forests. However, "saving forests" is best done by
using efficient wood burning stoves, or by designing stoves that burn "waste
sourced" fuels. A well designed stove burning wood completely is
inherently more efficient than one producing
char. </FONT><BR><BR></STRONG><BR>Now let’s say the remaining char is
burned in a charcoal stove with 50% efficiency, then 1 MJ goes into the
cooking process and 1 MJ is “lost.” Then we could calculate a cooking
process efficiency for the system (including the char-producing stove and
char-burning stove): ( 3 + 1 ) / 10 = 0.4<BR>
<B>[RWL7: I have no problem with this, which we can call
E5. What I would object to is always trying to put the char back in
the same stove where it was made. Or if that is somehow mandated, at
least also do a "best" different char-using stove as well, for what we call
E5. Call the char combustion in the same (non-optimum)
stove combination E6. That is apt to be in your example about
E6=(3+0.5)/10=0.35]</B><BR> <B>I defend being able
to combine apples (carbon neutrality) and oranges (carbon negativity)
because they are at least equally important (I am leaning
towards oranges).</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># If the remaining char is going to be burned, rather than have
to go to the trouble of having to "re-burn" it, why not simply purchase a
stove that that burns it efficiently the first time through??
</FONT> <FONT face=Arial>Your objection about putting the char back
into the same stove from which it was made is a serious one... this implies
that the customer would have to buy a second stove to burn the salvaged
char. At any rate, each stove should "rise or fall on its own
merits". Where the char was burned in the stove that made it, the same
procedure could be used, and the results reported as a second test, because
it used a different fuel. </FONT></STRONG>
<DIV><BR><BR>For char-producing stoves, we plan to report:<BR>- Thermal
efficiency per the WBT (remaining char gets full credit as unused
potentially available energy)<BR> <B>[RWL8: I
don't mind this (assuming this is E1). But I could not define
what this efficiency means as it is not in the "standard" form of E2 and
E3. In your terms, we have "bananas". (I avoided the word
"lemons")</B></DIV><B></B></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># Jim: If the stove test is to rate the particular stove for its
"energy utilizing efficiency", then the energy in the char is "energy lost
from the stove", and "energy unavailable for cooking/heating". In a Boiler
Efficiency Test, "ash pit carbon loss" is treated as an energy loss from the
test... what is the rational to justify not counting the char production as
a "stove Loss"?</FONT></STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR><BR>- Thermal efficiency for the “discarded” char scenario
<B><BR> [RWL9: E2.</B> <B> Fine. It helps
to compare with and note there is an E3. For sure, the
char-producing stove people will not want this called "discarded". How
about "cookpot-only"?]</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># If the char is not used as a fuel, the it is discarded from,
wasted, unused by the stove, etc. "Cookpot Only" could be construed as
"misleading advertising", in that it does not warn the Customer he will have
to dispose of unused char.</FONT> </STRONG>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># Note that if the char produced by such a
stove is used as biochar, having no fuel value, it is inappropriate to
credit it with a fuel value in stove Efficiency tests.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>- Thermal efficiency for char production <B><BR>
[RWL10: This (E3) is fine, and all I am asking for.
It is already the subtracted portion of the denominator in the E1
computation, so no new work is required.<BR>
No need to compute an E4 = E2+E3, - but I don't see how you can
prevent people from thinking it. What we want to be sure to warn
against is combining E1 and E3.</B></DIV><B></B></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># As noted above the concept of "Thermal Efficiency for Char
Production" is faulted. Any expression containing this term will be faulted
also.</FONT></STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR><STRONG> I don't see any value in
your carrying out experiments to determine an E5 and/or E6 - which is
what I perceive Crispin to be proposing. Anyone wanting such numbers
can put them together readily from your data from char-using stoves.
If you decide to do testing to find an E5 and/or E6, I'd like another
chance to discuss this further - especially if any testing can't acknowledge
some users will want their stove to make char to sell or put in the ground
(and not to burn).</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># I would suggest that this is a case of "the
Tail wagging the Dog." The common conception of "Stove Fuel
Efficiency" by Stove Customers and users is:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG> "For every 100 units of energy I put
into a stove, X% is used to provide a desired cooking and/or heating
function." Why not employ a Stove testing Protocol that most customers
and users can already understand? The "Char Making Stove Community" could
adapt the "commonly understood" test results as required by the "Promotional
Char Makers". </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><STRONG> I have no problem with you
(anyone) testing a char-making stove to consume all the char. I would
just not then call it a char-making stove.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG># If it makes char, why not call it for what
it is?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG> You will get really awful results if you try to stop any
test part way and weigh an intermediate amount of char with most (any?)
char-making stoves.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># Agreed. If the Customer does not want the char, he should buy a
stove that does not make it in the first place.</FONT> </STRONG><FONT
face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR><STRONG> You and Crispin are now in some
disagreement I think - as I believe he wants to have other data than you
have mentioned in this note. I haven't thought this all the way
through, but I don't think much new will come out of hs proposed new testing
- in a comparative sense. There might be some theoretcal value I have
yet to see, but the amount of testing work seems excessive, with no benefit
to users that I can see. As above, I hope we can have further
discussion on adding anything along the lines of his last memo, if the
testing involves something new relative to the handling and reporting of
char production.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># I am in favour of any stove testing protocol
which:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>1: Is scientifically
based</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>2: Clear in the meaning of various
terms</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>3: Easily repeatable by different testing
agencies in different locations, yielding virtually identical
results</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>4: Gives the Customer the information that
will enable him to pick the best stove for his
needs.</FONT></STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG>
<DIV><STRONG><BR></STRONG><BR>I think reporting these results will provide
complete information, and how others value the different efficiencies will
depend on objectives (saving fuel, producing char, or a combination of
both).<B><BR> [RWL11: Agreed. In sum, we
appear to be in complete agreement (because I am not now asking for E4
numbers to appear anywhere, and I never wanted E5 and
E6.]</B></DIV><B></B></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><STRONG><FONT
face=Arial># I feel it is fundamentally wrong to calculate the efficiency of
a char making stove by giving an energy credit for the unburned char. I feel
this very misleading, and that it gives a false impression of efficiency
that does not exist. I also feel that the term "Thermal efficiency for Char
Production" is a faulty concept. For Stove Customers want to produce char,
it is not helpful to rate char production in energy terms, but it would be
helpful to report the weight of char produced as a percentage of "Input Fuel
Weight"</FONT></STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR><BR><STRONG> [RWL12: Both Crispin and
I have perhaps recently raised another issue about subtracting unburned wood
energy similarly to subtracting the char energy in the denominator of an E1
computation. It needs consideration in the Elost area - as that wood energy
is certainly not lost in char-making stoves. But that is a topic for
a different discussion</STRONG>.]<BR><B><BR> [RWL
13: I have sometimes also mentioned that I would like to
see a reporting in carbon or carbon dioxide (kg) terms as well as energy
(MJ) terms. I believe the answers look a little better then for
char-making stoves. But I don't think this requires additional testing
on your part, so we can ignore for now. Aside: the "carbon
apples" and "carbon oranges" look more alike than their joule equivalents
.</B></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># One could probably write a book on the
features and benefits of every stove. However, it would be good if the Stove
Efficiency Test Report cound focus on the efficiency of fuel
usage.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Best wishes,</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Kevin</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>Best regards,a<BR>Jim<BR><BR><B>The same . Again
thanks -- Ron</B><BR>_____________<BR><BR>From:
rongretlarson@comcast.net [mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net] <BR>Sent:
Monday, April 22, 2013 2:57 PM<BR>To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves;
Jetter, James<BR>Subject: Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw
data of cookstove tests.<BR><BR>Jim and stove list:<BR><BR>
1. I like all parts of your message below, but want to comment on this
sentence:<BR><BR> " 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)."<BR><BR> I cannot concur that the "energy
in remaining char" is currently getting "full credit" (as you and I
discussed in Phnom Penh). An efficiency number emerges when the energy
in the char is subtracted in the denominator - but a much larger efficency
number emerges when the simple ratio of char energy over input energy is
added to the cookpot energy over input. I ask that the separate
char/input and pot/input energy numbers be added to the WBT data
output. <BR> I also hope someone
can explain what the present efficiency computation actually means - as it
is so different from the simple sum of the carbon neutral and carbon
negative stove efficiencies<BR><BR><BR> 2. I also feel
that the testing for air-controlled batch stoves needs be different from
those only controlling fuel supply. I am appending here a draft
"memo" that follows one I found for charcoal-using stoves. I think
this (39 kB) fits within the attachment rules given to us recently by
list-master Andrew Heggie, but if it fails, I will re-send through
Erin.<BR><BR><BR> 3. I will also respond to another
message today from Crispin that suggests all char produced should be later
consumed. This may be helpful addtionally - but the results for
char only being intended for placement in soil (as above in (1)) should
still be highlighted (and is not now).<BR><BR>Ron<BR></DIV>
<P></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>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>