<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Jim and "stoves":</div><div><br></div><div> 1. Thanks for the link (below) to the PPt. Very complete added notes - I guess transcribed.</div><div><br></div><div> 2. My first question relates to the "apples and oranges" discussion on slide #46, where you give the helpful example of energy into the pot (apples) of 30% and in char (oranges) of 20%, showing a calculated efficiency of .3/(1-.2) = .375 (37.5%). Then warnings about not being legitimate to add the 30 and 20%. I am in support of what you have written.</div><div><br></div><div> 3. I want to ask on the reverse side of this: What is the <u><b>inefficiency</b></u> (lost, useless energy) number? The obvious choices are the reciprocals of the above: 62.5%, 70%, and 50%. I can only justify 50% in my mind. Your choice? I ask to see if char-making stove salespersons would be justified in talking of this (lowest) 50%. </div><div><br></div><div> 4. A corollary question is - if we don't believe that 62.5% or 70% are justified inefficiency numbers, then what do we call the sum of "apples" and "oranges"?</div><div><br></div><div> 5. Some char-making stoves are seeing more than 20% char by weight - so maybe "oranges" could be 40%. If 30% still made it to the pot, this would lead to the "main" reported stove efficiency of .3/(1-.4)=.5 (50%) and the choices for inefficiency become 50% (100 minus number to left), 70% (no change, by assumption on apples), and (100-30-40)=30%. This done only to show that the "sales pitch" differences can be larger than in your example. The question is what is the smallest inefficiency numbers you have measured yet for char-making stoves (along with the number of "apples" and "oranges" to come up with that number)</div><div><br></div><div> Again - thanks for all you are doing. </div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Sep 21, 2013, at 3:35 PM, "Jetter, James" <<a href="mailto:Jetter.Jim@epa.gov">Jetter.Jim@epa.gov</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">To All,<br><br>Thanks to those who joined us for the webinar on August 29, and thanks to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves for hosting.<br><br>The recorded webinar, presentation slides with notes, and draft spreadsheet have been posted for your information, review, and comments:<br><a href="http://community.cleancookstoves.org/communities/forums/viewtopic/22/33/207?post_id=357#p357">http://community.cleancookstoves.org/communities/forums/viewtopic/22/33/207?post_id=357#p357</a><br><br>The purpose of the webinar was to:<br> Provide an update on the EPA cookstove testing project<br> Present a format (EPA spreadsheet) for sharing data<br> Discuss test methods<br> Focus on example testing results for a batch-fueled pyrolytic TLUD (top-lit up-draft) stove<br> Solicit further comments on methods, spreadsheet, and data sharing<br><br>Please let me know if you have any further comments by Oct. 11. My email address is: jetter.jim@epa.gov<br><br>Regards,<br>Jim Jetter<br><br><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></blockquote></div><br></body></html>