<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Otto</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=terra-matricula@hotmail.com
href="mailto:terra-matricula@hotmail.com">Otto Formo</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Stoves Bioenergylist</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=jetter.jim@epa.gov
href="mailto:jetter.jim@epa.gov">Jim Jetter</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 11:52
AM</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 dir=ltr>Dear stovers,<BR> <BR>Iam a bit surprised to see time and
efforts spend on this issue.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># That just goes to show how complex and
"many sided" the issue is!! :-)</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>My mother toungue
is not english, but in Norway we use the terms of fuels related to a
stove:<BR><STRONG>Wood </STRONG>stove, <STRONG>gas </STRONG>stove,
kerosine etc, <STRONG>mainly</STRONG> for heating.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># Same thing in Canada. By far the
greates percentage of "wood stoves" are intended for heating only. A "wood
furnacew" is generally a wood burning appliance intended for central heatin,
while a "wood stove" is more often a supplemental heater.
</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>A traditional wood stove ment for both heating
and cooking is called a "<STRONG>komfyr".</STRONG><BR>They also have an
oven for frying and grilling.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># In Canada, that would be called a
"Range". </FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>A stove for mainly cooking with an oven
for frying/grilling, we still call a "komfyr", wether it is run on
gas, electricity etc.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># I would think that a "range" implies a
solid fuel (coal or wood), but here a "gas or electric stove" basically
implies a Cooking Stove with "stovetop burners" and an oven, but not a heating
function.</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>A STOVE should be very much linked to
the fuels used, how its operate and named accordingly, whats the big
deal?<BR>The name does not harm or shame, anyone. </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># Stove Identification is fundamental
for the Purchaser. he has to specify the fuel,and the various functions
he desires. For example... "The Wife wants a cooking stove that burns
stickwood, has 4 stovetop burners, and has an oven with temperature control,
so she can bake bread and cakes." </FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>I feel one of
the most important issues is to know what type of fuel to be used in a stove,
when you want to purchase one.<BR>AND a Multi Use Stove will be the best
option for "everybody", I belive.<BR>If you have access to pellets, you want a
stove burning pellets, if I have access to etanol youI would like to have a
stove burning ethanol, if you have charcoal you want...............:)</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>#
Exactly!</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>In a stove using woody biomass you end
up with char or biochar, if you like, anyhow.<BR>Most devices utelizes the
char for both heating and/or cooking and the outcome of energy content spend,
should be very much the "same".</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># Sometimes the char is wanted for
external reasons, and sometimes it is not wanted. At any rate, the stove being
tested simply reports the char production, without making a judgement on its
subsequent use.</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>I hope GACC have a more broader
veiw and do not loose the focus on Clean Cooking DEVICES and do not impose
rigorous standards of performence, based<SPAN
style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,253,248); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px/15px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
on s</SPAN>tringent fuel efficiency.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><FONT face=Arial># There is a HUGE difference between a
"Test" and a "Regulation". The "Test" simply measures the performance of a
given stove, and reports on teh measured facts. "Regulations, Laws and
Standards" basically state "For a Stove to be acceptable, it must meet the XYZ
Performance Requirements for Fuel, Function, health, and Safety"
</FONT><BR></STRONG> <BR>What about
emissions.................................??</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial># Emissions testing would be part of a "Testing
program". Again, "Emission Test would simply measure the extent of emissions
of interest.... gases and particulate matter.</FONT></DIV><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR> <BR>Otto<BR> <BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV id=SkyDrivePlaceholder></DIV>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: kchisholm@ca.inter.net<BR>To: stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org;
crispinpigott@gmail.com<BR>Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:15:14 -0300<BR>CC:
jetter.jim@epa.gov; rchiang@cleancookstoves.org<BR>Subject: Re: [Stoves] Truth
in stove reports Re: FW: REQUESTfor complete sets of raw data of cookstove
tests.<BR><BR>
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass P {
MARGIN:0px;
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There are a relatively few distinct "Stove Categories",
in the sense of "stoves designed to accomplish stated tasks." For
example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1: Heating stoves</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2: Cooking Stoves</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>3: Stoves designed for both Heating and
Cooking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Some stove systems produce char. Examples of such "char
producing stove categories" could include:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>4: Stove systems intended to produce char, with no
inherent cooking or heating function</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>5: Stove systems intended for both char production
and heating</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>6: Stove systems intended for both char production
and cooking</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>7: Stove systems intended for char production,
cooking, and heating.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Could you please elaborate on what you would consider
"testing procedures that treat char making stoves fairly"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>What would you consider to be "testing procedures that
treat char making stoves unfairly"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rongretlarson@comcast.net
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B>
<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>
</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><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; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B>
Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:06 AM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><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 style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass p {
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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><BR><BR>
<HR id=ecxzwchr>
<B>From: </B><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.<BR><BR>
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass p {
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass p {
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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>
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/154033344/Stove-Performance-Inventory-Report---Global-Alliance-for-Clean<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<BR><BR>
<HR id=ecxzwchr>
<B>From: </B>"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"
<crispinpigott@gmail.com><BR><B>To:
</B>rongretlarson@comcast.net<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>
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink {
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;
}
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoPlainText, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoPlainText, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoPlainText {
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass p {
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass pre {
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoAcetate, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoAcetate, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoAcetate {
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoListParagraph {
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxHTMLPreformattedChar {
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxPlainTextChar {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxBalloonTextChar {
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxapple-style-span {
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle26 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle27 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle28 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle29 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle30 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle31 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle32 {
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
}
.ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault {
font-size:10.0pt;
}
.ExternalClass div.ecxWordSection1 {
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV class=ecxWordSection1>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Dear
Ron</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">I can
add:</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"
lang=EN-US>></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><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B>[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. <BR></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B><BR></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B>
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):</B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B> "<I>
</I></B></SPAN><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.<BR></I></P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B>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 %</B>.<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<BR></B></DIV><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><B>[RWL 1 or
2?]</B><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><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: rgb(31,73,125)">Jim and I
both report the heat transfer efficiency and the fuel efficiency.</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal> <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> ]<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"></SPAN><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">>>></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: rgb(31,73,125)"><<</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"
lang=EN-US>"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?<BR><BR></B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
<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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Output
metrics</SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
1
Fuel use(4)
Emissions(7)
Time (2)<BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row 2
Thermal efficiency; Species: CO2, CO, CH4, NMHC, PM, BC, OC; Time per test
phase <BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
3: Specific energy consumption;
Emissions per MJ delivered; Time per task
<BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
4: Specific energy consumption
rate; Emissions per kg and MJ
fuel</SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
5 Fuel use per capita; Emissions
per minute</SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
6:
Emissions per task <BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Row
7
Modified combustion efficiency <BR></SPAN></I></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><I>Row
8
Combustion efficiency</I><B><BR></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> <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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
The metrics that would be added to the above list or do this as one of the
tasks (none removed) could be:</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B> Measured:
weight of water(kg) evaporated, fuel, and char</B></P>
<P
class=ecxMsoNormal><B>
times to complete and operator time</B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B><BR></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B> Calculated: E2 and
E3 (percent energy in the boil-away and in the char)</B></P>
<P
class=ecxMsoNormal><B>
ratios of water weight evaporated to input fuel and
char weights (and/or inverses - dimensionless figures of
merit)</B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B><BR></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><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]<BR></B></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><B> </B> <BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><U><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><BR></SPAN></B></U></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><U><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> CPP:</SPAN></B></U></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
<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><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
<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 <BR></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B>
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">"...</SPAN></B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> mass of
water in the pot is not related to either the fuel consumed nor the
emissions"</SPAN></I></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">can be
changed to read:</SPAN></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
" </SPAN></B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">...
</SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><I>mass of
water <U><B>evaporated</B></U> in the pot is <U><B>directly</B></U> related
to <B><U>both</U></B> the fuel consumed <U><B>and</B></U> the
emissions</I></SPAN></SPAN><B>"]</B><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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. <BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
<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><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">As you know
there are several versions of WBT spreadsheets still in use:</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">UCB-WBT
3.0</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">CCT
2.0</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">UCB-WBT 3.1
(actually there are 3 or 3 versions of this one)</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">PEMS Hood v
7.1.2 which appears to be based on UCB-WBT 3.1</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">ETHOS WBT
4.1.2 (there are 2 or 3 versions of this one)</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">GACC 4.2.1
(current version Feb 2013)</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">If you
enter the same test data in each sheet, you will get a different answer from
each for the thermal efficiency.</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">
<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></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><B>
Anyone agree? End. Ron]</B><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Regards</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Crispin</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<HR>
<P><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></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings
use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</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>