<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle33
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=#0563c1 bgColor=white vLink=#954f72>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Frank</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanks for your constructive and helpful
comments.</FONT></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=frank@compostlab.com href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com">Frank
Shields</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> ; <A
title=rchiang@cleancookstoves.org
href="mailto:rchiang@cleancookstoves.org">'Ranyee Chiang'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:48
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove
reports Re:FW: REQUESTfor complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Kevin and
Stovers,<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"><snip><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">"testing
procedures that treat char making stoves fairly"?<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">These are procedures that
group char making stoves into a single group and compare with each other using
Real World (RW) conditions (6 Box system) . Results are based on Fuel-carbon
/ used to produce a quantity and quality of char. The waste heat from
gases is NOT important. If we want to research to determine why one stove
works better than another we can do testing using Research Conditions (RC) in
the 6 Box system to determine best air flow, volume ratios etc. and their
effects on making the better char making stove. Report findings in a paper
titled “Ten Steps to Making the Perfect Char Making Stove”.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><STRONG><FONT size=3># You
raise a very good point about "grouping various stoves into a comparable
category." Then teh Agency or Customer can select the stove that best suits
their needs. In the case of "char making stoves", people who want char can
select such a stove from the "char making stoves" category, that best mets
their circumstances.</FONT></STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">What would
you consider to be "testing procedures that treat char making stoves
unfairly"?</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Comparing char making stoves
with other purpose stoves, using Research Conditions in testing, using the WBT
and use pyrolysis gasses as a loss.<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">I’m not Ron but just helping
him out - : ) Hope you don’t mind.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"># No problem! I was hoping
that Ron would reply, in that he (and perhaps others) appears to have a
problem with relating actual cooking and heating performance with actual fuel
consumption. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><FONT size=3><STRONG># Two
problems I see with Ron's approach are:</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><FONT size=3><STRONG>1: "Fair"
means "unbiased." Ron wants to "favourably present" char making stoves, by
basically treating the char production as "fuel that was not supplied to the
stove."</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><FONT size=3><STRONG>2: The
purpose of a "Stove Test" is "To Test a Stove." It is not the purpose of a
"Stove Test" to favour an "External Agenda", such as sales of a particular
stove, Climate Change, Carbon Credits for char, etc. The Stove Test
should report on stove performance, based on facts obtained by the tests, in a
neutral and unbiased manner.</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><FONT size=3><STRONG># I like
your "6 Box System". It goes a long way toward bridging the gulf between "Lab
Tests" and "Field Tests."</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Best wishes,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Kevin</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Frank<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"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Thanks
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Frank
Shields<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">BioChar
Division<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Control
Laboratories, Inc. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">42 Hangar
Way<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Watsonville,
CE 95076<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(831)
724-5422 tel<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(81) 724-3188
fax<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><A
href="mailto:frank@biocharlab.com"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">frank@biocharlab.com</SPAN></A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">www.controllabs.com<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><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"><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"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Kevin</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: black 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">----- Original
Message ----- <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=rongretlarson@comcast.net
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=crispinpigott@gmail.com href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott</A> ; <A title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=jetter.jim@epa.gov href="mailto:jetter.jim@epa.gov">jetter jim</A> ;
<A title=rchiang@cleancookstoves.org
href="mailto:rchiang@cleancookstoves.org">Ranyee Chiang</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Thursday, May
02, 2013 2:06 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Re: [Stoves]
Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUESTfor complete sets of raw data of
cookstove tests.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Crispin and list, Ranyee,
Jim<BR><BR> This should be viewed as part of my campaign to be
sure that IWA and WBT testing treat char-making stoves fairly. Maybe there
are ongoing discussions within GACC on that topic, but if not maybe
this will be of some help. This is not complete.<BR>See below,
skipping my short message from last nght, and starting with Crispin's reply
to me, with new responses identified as <B>[RWL3]</B><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
<HR id=zwchr align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">From: </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><A
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A><BR><B>To:
</B>"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<A
href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</A>>,
"Discussion of biomass" <<A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</A>><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:58:06 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [Stoves]
Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST
for complete sets
of raw data of cookstove
tests.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Crispin and list. <BR>
<BR> Thanks<BR><BR> I see now I have not been paying
enough attention to the IWA methodology. For others, you also may want
to look at a report out of Berkeley, discussing the new IWA
ranking/comparison rules, which include a WBT (probably 4.2.1??) found
at:<BR><BR> <A
href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/154033344/Stove-Performance-Inventory-Report---Global-Alliance-for-Clean">http://www.docstoc.com/docs/154033344/Stove-Performance-Inventory-Report---Global-Alliance-for-Clean</A><BR>
<BR> I want to make sure that the IWA rules (5 % is an important
efficiency difference number!) are handlng char production in a manner fair
to char-producing stoves. I'm not yet sure of anything. More
tomorrow.<BR><BR>Ron<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
<HR id=zwchr align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">From:
</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">"Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott" <<A
href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</A>><BR><B>To:
</B><A
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:45:39 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>RE: [Stoves] Truth
in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST
for complete sets
of raw data of cookstove
tests.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Dear
Ron</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">I can
add:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">></SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">RWL1b: Is the current
WBT4.2.1 a "regular"? "blunt"? I would have guessed (not
looked) that 5% difference resolution is being
claimed.</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">WBT 4.2.1 has a
resolution that is dependent on several things. Because it uses the final
mass of water in the pot for boiling and simmering, and these are quite
variable from one test to the next, then you cannot expect the resolution
even for very simple direct measurements to be very precise. If you look at
three replications of a test and see what the variation is, you can get a
feeling for the precision. None of that determines the accuracy which is
another matter altogether. Yes it is a blunt instrument and cannot provide,
for example, the heat transfer efficiency with a resolution of 5%. To
determine the heat transfer efficiency with good precision you have to avoid
crossing the boiling point. This is easily demonstrated by calculating the
efficiency between 40-85 degrees (remember to account for evaporation) and
then between 55-100. The 40-85 degree range will consistently give the same
result but the 55-100 will differ from test to test, and will differ from
the 40-85 degree figure even though the stove is operating in pretty much
the same conditions all the time.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Changing the pot
also gives a different answer because the heat transfer efficiency is a
matter of the relationship between the stove and the pot, not what is in
it.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">[RWL3-1: I hope we can
hear from others on how repeatable the tests are. I have not seen test
results and would like to. </SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> I
wonder if anyone has proposed a test trying to maximize the amount of water
boiled away for a batch (char-making presumably) stove? I think
this would be of interest to many stove purchasers and should be quite
repeatable (not "crude"). The amount of energy required for
vaporization seems to be relatively independent of pressure (altitude) and
not very dependent on the boiling point temperature. I hope others can
check those statements. I found (after quite a search) this at a New
York School system website (and couldn't find a way to give you a
cite):</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> "<I>
</I></SPAN></B><I>The heat of vaporization of water at 70°C is 2.33 x 103
joules per gram, whereas at 100°C it is 2.26 x 103 joules per
gram.</I><o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This says that
Denver area at 3-4 degrees lower boiling point, assuming linearity, would
have a heat of vaporization of <BR>about 2.27x10^3 joules per gram - a
difference of less than 1/2 %</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">.<B>.
I had assumed until I went looking that there would be much greater
variation. Of course there will be variation with different pot shapes
and materials, but that s true for any WBT. If need be, it seems
that even this 1/2% difference can be modified - as is the case for fuel
moisture.</B><BR><BR> <B>So knowing weights lost should give an
accurate measure of energy input - much closer than the differences you
(Crispin) describe above. Or what am I
missing?<BR><BR> Different energy inputs will certainly
give different speeds of vaporization, but that could be part of the testing
procedure. It is not clear that the energy inputs per kg water
evaporated will be wildly different. Has anyone experience on
this? It doesn't matter too much if the procedures are the same for
all stoves of a similar type.<BR><BR> Wind should make a
difference by removing water molecules above the surface, but these tests
will mostly be in a lab. Also a wind/breeze will also cool the pot and
probably reduce the flame efficiency, so a fan is not necesarily going to
show better energy transfer. But will tests in the same lab space give
repeatability? Can stoves be equitably compared? And can the
placement of stoves into the IWA categories of 1-4 be done in a fair manner
with this system? I see no reason why
not.<BR><BR> For those who haven't read in this
area, all stovers will be striving to achieve >45% efficiency (category
4). Gas and liquid fossil fuel stoves are reported in these sort
of tests (p 18, Figure 7 of above Berkeley report) to achieve 50%.
According to that same figure, char-making and fan stoves have a
chance. End RWL3-1</B><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">[RWL 1
or 2?]</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
<B>I think that Jim is (using WBT4.2.1) testing for and reporting on
heat transfer efficiency. Not true?</B><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Jim and I both
report the heat transfer efficiency and the fuel
efficiency.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <B>[RWL3-2: Crispin may
also be saying he trusts his, but not those from the current WBT4.2.1
(not saying anything about Jim Jetter's skills). So I have to ask
Crispin if that can be true? Reporting yes for both, believability no
for Jim, yes for you?</B> ]<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">>>></SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">[RWL2a</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> In next to last sentence,
you say (emphasis added):<BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><<</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">"There are
<B><U>particular metrics</U></B> which provide valuable information about
performance."<BR>><B>[RWL2b. Are there some particular
metrics that could be, should be, and are not now supplied through the WBT
4.2.1 procedures?</B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">There are 9
metrics in the IWA. Only one is provided by the WBT 4.1.2 which is
referenced in the document (a proxy for heat transfer efficiency). In order
to overcome that shortfall a small team is working on updating the
calculated outputs from WBT tests. Version 4.2.1 has a new section added to
each of the Test1-3 tabs which calculates some of the metrics needed for the
IWA. There may be problems with some of those calculations. If so, they will
come out in an independent review. If there is no review, we are at risk, as
before, of adopting a method that has defects that
matter.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
<B>[RWL3-3: The other "8" metrics are not clear to me. Certainly
there is a safety category, but here is a list of 13 "metrics" from the
above Berkeley report:</B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Output
metrics</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row
1
Fuel use(4)
Emissions(7)
Time (2)</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row 2
Thermal efficiency; Species: CO2, CO, CH4, NMHC, PM, BC, OC; Time per test
phase </SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row 3:
Specific energy consumption; Emissions per MJ
delivered; Time per task </SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row 4:
Specific energy consumption rate;
Emissions per kg and MJ fuel</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row 5
Fuel use per capita; Emissions per
minute</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row
6:
Emissions per task </SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row
7
Modified combustion efficiency </SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Row
8
Combustion efficiency</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"> <B>
I note that there is nothing in this list about the efficiency of making
char (which is why I am writing this, but that is a different story. As long
as E!, E2, and E3 are reported, per Jim Jetter's note of a week ago.
But this list can be for various tasks and I am suggesting that one that is
fair to char-making stoves is the one above - boil away until the maximum
amount of char has been produced . This is to ask if others think this
might be a reasonable task to compare char-making stoves? If
not, why not?</B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"> The
metrics that would be added to the above list or do this as one of the tasks
(none removed) could be:</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B> Measured:
weight of water(kg) evaporated, fuel, and char</B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P
class=MsoNormal><B>
times to complete and operator time</B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B> Calculated: E2 and E3
(percent energy in the boil-away and in the char)</B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P
class=MsoNormal><B>
ratios of water weight evaporated to input fuel and
char weights (and/or inverses - dimensionless figures of
merit)</B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B> Above for minimum time (max
power) and maximum efficiency (minimum fuel use); these might require
three- four tests ranging from barely bubbling to rolling boil.
This may be excessive - maybe doing just twice near the extremes of the
turn-down ratio is enough. Mostly this test can be done unattended -
for maybe an hour. End RWL3-3]</B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B> </B> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><U><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"> CPP:</SPAN></U></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">There are still
remaining problems which is that three of the metrics in the IWA are not
really valid. All relate to the low power phase. This has been brought to
the attention of the relevant parties. The root problem is that the heat
transfer efficiency during low power and the fuel consumed to run a
‘simmering test now called a low power test’ is not related to the mass of
water inside the pot. As has been point out many times here in the past, the
WBT rewards, with a higher performance rating, the evaporation of water
during simmering. Anytime the mass of water in the simmered pot is divided
into something, an invalid number results.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
<B>[RWL3-4: I don't see that my above suggestion falls
into this "invalid" category. Everything is defined and repeatable in
different countries, altitudes, etc. The assumption is a normal full
load of fuel and a normal (uncapped) pot of water - something many people do
every day. How little fuel and emissions and how much char for this
task? ] </B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Simmering (which
is not a scientifically defined term) was discussed at the IWA meeting and
it was agreed to dispense with all references to simmering (which were duly
removed). However the metrics requested still require simmering to be
obtained which is a contradiction. You cannot, for the reason mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, have a ‘specific’ performance number from a
simmering phase (which is why it was dropped). The meaning is that you might
divide the fuel, or emissions, by the mass of water in the pot at the time.
Well, the mass of water in the pot is not related to either the fuel
consumed nor the emissions from the fire so we still have a conceptual
problem. If you double the amount of water in a pot, it does not use more
fuel to simmer it. The YDD Lab has been conducting accurate experiments
showing this.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
<B>[RWL3-5: I concur that simmering is difficult. I
am proposing something much easier to do (for char-making stoves only,
probably, assuming they have primary air control). More specifically,
your sentence above which reads </B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
"...</SPAN></B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"> mass of water in
the pot is not related to either the fuel consumed nor the
emissions"</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">can be changed to
read:</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"> " ...
</SPAN></B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">mass of water
<B><U>evaporated</U></B> in the pot is <B><U>directly</U></B> related to
<B><U>both</U></B> the fuel consumed <B><U>and</U></B> the
emissions</SPAN></I><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">"]</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">We are not
discussing conceptual problems as a group and I have raised that omissions
with the relevant parties. No doubt the WBT (which is one of several tests
that can be done) will be further refined and we will eventually agree on
what valid measurements are for it. There are still problems with
definitions so I have recently made some suggestions in that regard. I
posted some definitions of efficiencies here a few days ago.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
<B>[RW3-6: It is too late for me and this already too
long. Maybe tomorrow. But as long as char is included in the E2,
E3 manner (char weight and energy related to inputs), probably other
definitions are OK as well.]</B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">In many cases
there is no need to invent new terms or definitions. Engineers have been
measuring and describing heat transfer for many years and there are many
books on the subject but they are not the Book of the Month Club list. I try
to make noise about the most important ones and in each case provide
alternative calculations, definitions or alternative metrics which may be
valid.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">As you know there
are several versions of WBT spreadsheets still in use:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">UCB-WBT
3.0</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">CCT
2.0</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">UCB-WBT 3.1
(actually there are 3 or 3 versions of this one)</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">PEMS Hood v 7.1.2
which appears to be based on UCB-WBT 3.1</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">ETHOS WBT 4.1.2
(there are 2 or 3 versions of this one)</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">GACC 4.2.1
(current version Feb 2013)</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">PEMS Hood v 4.1.2
which appears to be based on UCB-WBT 3.1 but it has elements of the last
version of 3.1 and also elements of the first (see calculation of the Dry
Fuel Equivalent)</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">There is another
version of the PEMS Hood spreadsheet (or program) but I have not seen it
yet. As far as I know it is the same spreadsheet as the 7.1.2 version. It is
being updated by Ryan.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">If you enter the
same test data in each sheet, you will get a different answer from each for
the thermal efficiency.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
<B>[RWL3-7: I concur this array of tests is horrible. As
near as I can tell, the only test being considered by the GACC is the
WBT4.21 - and it is NOT (or has not been) designed at all with char
production in mind. I think the above is a fair way to compare
char-making stoves. Other stove types can or need not do the
same.</B></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">
Anyone agree? End.
Ron]</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Regards</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Crispin</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves
mailing list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR><A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</A><BR><BR>to
UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR><A
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</A><BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR><A
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE></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>