<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Dear Ron<br/><br/>The issues with most stove test protocols, but particularly with the WBT's relate to three type of conceptual errors. <br/><br/>1. The mass of water remaining in the pot is used as the amount 'boiled' or 'simmered' and 'specific' performance numbers are incorrect. <br/><br/>2. The consideration of dried, torrefied, charred and ashed materials (i.e. non-new materials) frequently gives misleading performance claims because of the way the energy content and re-useability of the fuels are considered. <br/><br/>3. The formula used in many spreadsheets does not handle fuel moisture correctly - simple math errors that skew different fuel moisture levels differently. <br/><br/>There are other issues such as the averaging of ratios and averaging of averages of averages but these are relatively minor in their influence and error. <br/><br/>By far the largest difference between 'perceived claims' (what people think they are being told) and the actual meaning of the claimed numbers relates to treating char made by gasifiers as unburned raw fuel. If the TLUD promoters do not get to grips with what is happening a) behind the formulas and b) what is happening behind the scenes with respect to the difference between a 'uses xx g of fuel to perform a WBT' and the fuel needed to do so. <br/><br/>The reputation of the stove sector rests on our ability - as a group - to deal with these in a straight forward manner. <br/><br/>Regards<br/>Crispin<div>From BB9900</div><hr/><div><b>From: </b> Ron <rongretlarson@comcast.net>
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:06:14 -0600</div><div><b>To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Paul Anderson<psanders@ilstu.edu></div><div><b>Cc: </b>crispinpigott@gmail.com<crispinpigott@gmail.com>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Hugh McLaughlin<wastemin1@verizon.net>; Jim Jetter<Jetter.Jim@epamail.epa.gov></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.</div><div><br/></div><div>Paul:</div><div><br></div><div> 1. I agree with your thoughts below. Thanks for persevering.</div><div><br></div><div> 2. Can you help answer the questions below on Crispin's note to you.<br><br><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote cite="mid:241111561-1367046504-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-452129710-@b5.c10.bise6.blackberry" type="cite">The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and gets (got, anyway) a rating of 636g. <br> RWL - Any other data? Amount of char? Any formulas or web sites to visit?</blockquote></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote cite="mid:241111561-1367046504-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-452129710-@b5.c10.bise6.blackberry" type="cite">The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1. <br></blockquote></div></blockquote></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> RWL: What are the 4.2.1 values?<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote cite="mid:241111561-1367046504-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-452129710-@b5.c10.bise6.blackberry" type="cite"><br>However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that category. </blockquote></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> RWL: What category?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Thanks. Ron</span></div></span></div><div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469);"><br></span>On Apr 27, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Stovers,<br>
<br>
I asked Crispin to name the stoves for which the reported results
are not accurate. And he named one of mine, the Quad 2, which
happens to be about the ONLY stove for which raw data sets have
been made available on the Internet.<br>
<br>
(So, to the the GACC and EPA and others: My request for more
disclosure of raw data set is STILL not satisfied, although we
have received assurances of eventual compliance.)<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, Crispin sent his reply only to me. Perhaps he was
trying to be nice. But I want the cards on the table for ALL
stoves, and it does not matter if one of my stoves is presented in
a bad light (TEMPORARILY). Much of this depends on how the data
is presented, both in calculations and in discussions.<br>
<br>
So much talk and so little reality. <br>
<br>
I am NOT here to defend or condemn stoves that make charcoal (and
they are mainly the TLUD stoves). The reality is that they
exist, and are consistently shown to be among the lowest of
biomass-fueled cookstoves in emissions of CO and PM .<br>
<br>
And they do not require wood as fuel. Those are facts.<br>
<br>
Let the discussions continue. But I am happy that others have
been doing the discussion.<br>
<br>
Dr TLUD<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 4/27/2013 2:08 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:241111561-1367046504-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-452129710-@b5.c10.bise6.blackberry" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Sorry for not replying. I am on a job in Palo Alto, CA. <br>
<br>
The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and
gets (got, anyway) a rating of 636g. <br>
<br>
The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1. <br>
<br>
However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that
category. The UNFCCC uses the CCT 2.0 (names it specifically) and
that uses the energy efficiency, not the fuel efficiency as the
metric to compare on the assumption that stoves do not make char.
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Crispin travelling
<div>From BB9900</div>
<hr>
<div><b>From: </b> Paul Anderson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><psanders@ilstu.edu></a>
</div>
<div><b>Date: </b>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:20 -0500</div>
<div><b>To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></a></div>
<div><b>Cc: </b>Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com"><crispinpigott@gmail.com></a></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets
of raw data of cookstove tests.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Crispin,<br>
<br>
You wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color:#1F497D"> stoves that
actually take off 3 tons of biomass per year have been
getting credit for taking only one ton and proclaimed to be
‘better’ and ‘more fuel efficient’ than a two-ton stove. </span></blockquote>
Please provide an example. If it is a specific stove, then
name the names and give the data.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 4/25/2013 10:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:015d01ce41c6$6c012ef0$44038cd0$@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<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";
color:black;
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";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Here is the
problem restated slightly better without prejudice re
other biomass:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If someone is
interested in the char, it can be reported – it is in the
raw data set. What Ron is proposing, to reduce the energy
in the fuel consumed by the heat energy available in the
remaining char, is akin to considering the fuel efficiency
to be the energy efficiency which is precisely what
created for us a problem in the first place. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The energy
value of the char came from somewhere. Consider a stove
that needs 2 tons of biomass per year to operate. If it
produces ¼ of a ton of biomass energy equivalent in the
form of char, fine. Say so. But saying so does not reduce
the two tons of biomass it takes to feed the system. If
you have (as you pointed out) a second stove that can
utilise the charcoal, then that can be viewed as a
‘system’ by all and sundry, but is still does not change
the fact that Stove 1 takes two tons of biomass each year
which is what the reported fuel consumption should be. The
impact of a system is not the same as the impact of a
component of that system. The only debate left is how to
report the fuel consumption and by-products.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">What has been
happening that is wrong, in my view, is that stoves that
actually take off 3 tons of biomass per year have been
getting credit for taking only one ton and proclaimed to
be ‘better’ and ‘more fuel efficient’ than a two-ton
stove. Plainly this is not the case and the test method
has to report the fuel consumption correctly. It is a
problem that the UNFCCC methodology (which measures energy
efficiency) does not handle this well and it is being used
for CDM trades. People are being cheated.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Crispin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Stoves mailing list</span><br><span></span><br><span>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address</span><br><span><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:</span><br><span><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>