<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Kevin and list</div><div><br></div><div> There are many reasons for one test procedure rather than two:</div><div><br></div><div> All stoves can produce char. It depends on when and how you stop their operation.</div><div> I have participated in a lot of stove testing - and users have always saved their char. Char has value, no matter how little is made.</div><div> If there is zero char, then there is no extra cost.</div><div> You will not be able to compare between tests using the present protocol unless you know the amount of char produced.</div><div> There are decades of tests with char production records. You will lose the ability to compare progress if you stop measuring char.</div><div> Some char-making stoves are more efficient (less annual input material) than many that have no intended production. You need the charcoal amount to show that.</div><div> Many experts have Ok'd the existing tests. Changing the procedures will cost time and money.</div><div> Every stove manufacturer should want the charcoal included - including char makes the efficiency numbers look better (not as good it could/should, but better).</div><div> Those arguing for a change have given no good reason for that change other than saving a small dollar amount. </div><div> Much present stove testing is free to the manufacturer - and they will/should learn a lot from knowing how much energy is in the char - if they desire to get rid of it.</div><div> </div><div>There are probably more; this list is not intended to be exhaustive.</div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Kevin <<a href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23532">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Ron</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="rongretlarson@comcast.net" href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">Ronal W. Larson</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> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:28
PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a
way totest char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)</div>
<div><br></div>Paul and "stoves":
<div><br></div>
<div> I would add that it is very important also that all stoves
(not just char-making stoves) be rated on their production of char.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"># Why do you feel that ALL stoves should be forced to
pay for the extra expense of the testing associated with the determination of
the energy loss to the char? It is reasonable to require that stoves intended
to produce char be tested for their char producing capability, but it does not
make sense to require "Full Combustion Stoves" to be tested for
char.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div> The rating should be in kilos, percentages and energy terms.
I guess (not sure) that "fuel" means kg and its %; energy means joules
and its %. Fortunately these are all being given now by EPA and (I
think) GACC. Some wish to call anything related to char as non-existent
(consumed) - which makes no sense to me. I am not changing your
response to Kevin - only making sure that the emphasis in this discussion be
on the words "char-production" in your last sentence. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div> Until we have a better alternative to the words "<i style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> minus the energy remaining in the char" -
</i><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">we are stuck with it - although that
approach undervalues the char.</span></div>
<div><br></div>
<div> This is the same answer I give to Kevin who wrote earlier
today, with his and my emphasis on the word "minus":</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"># It seems to me that there are two fundamentally
different "Stove Systems":</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">1: Those that are of a design intended to minimize
the requirement for fuel input</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">and</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">2: Those that are of a design intended to produce char,
for other desirable purposes.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"># It thus follows that there should be two test
procedures to enable comparison of stoves within each class. Inherently a
"Full Combustion Stove" will have less fuel consumption than a stove that
inherently loses a significant portion of teh fuel energy as char.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"># If the "Class 1 Stoves were tested for "Fuel
Efficiency", and teh "Class 2" stoves were tested for both fuel efficiency and
the fuel energy remaining in the char, then stoves in each class could be
rated on their intended performance. Additionally, however, the fuel
efficiency of both classes could be compared, so that a Stove Buyer would know
how much more fuel he would have to purchase for a heating/cooking task, and
also, how much residual char he could expect. It strikes me as pointless and
unfair to require a Class 1 Stove manufacturer to do a char test, when his
stove is producing little or no char.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Best wishes,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Kevin</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial"><i>
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Ron</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Do you believe that wood burning stoves will be rated
for fuel consumption, but that "char making stoves" will be rated
for</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">fuel consumption minus the energy remaining in the
char?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Kevin</font></div></i></font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"></blockquote></div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 24, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Kevin and all,<br><br>All stoves should be rated
on ENERGY consumption as well as FUEL consumption. That is
not too much to expect. And would alert the readers of the test
reports to the difference that char-production accomplishes in some
stoves.<br><br>Paul<br><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
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
10/24/2013 11:00 AM, Kevin wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:F9AB54ECEC764CF1BE1D1233C3191926@usera594fda0bf" type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23532">
<style></style>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="kchisholm-inter@uniserve.com" href="mailto:kchisholm-inter@uniserve.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Kevin</a> </div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Discussion of biomass cooking stoves</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:42 AM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test
char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)</div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Arial">
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Ron</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Do you believe that wood burning stoves will be
rated for fuel consumption, but that "char making stoves" will be rated
for </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">fuel consumption minus the energy remaining in the
char?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Kevin</font></div></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="rongretlarson@comcast.net" href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Ronal W.
Larson</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="crispinpigott@gmail.com" href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a> ; <a title="stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Discussion of biomass</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 23, 2013
2:16 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c
as a way to test char-making stoves(attn: GACC testers)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Crispin cc stoves</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> Fine.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Ron</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:10 AM, <a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)" data-blackberry-caret-color="#00a8df">
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Dear
Ron</div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">We'll
at least this time you are not putting words in my mouth, you are just
misunderstanding what I write and as far as I see, deliberately
so. </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">If
you have no more questions I will be happy to move on. </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Regards </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">Crispin
</div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">>>Q10>>></div>
<table style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white; BORDER-SPACING: 0px" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)" colspan="2">
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate
Pro'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP: rgb(181,196,223) 1pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 3pt" id="_persistentHeader">
<div><b>From: </b>Ronal W. Larson</div>
<div><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:47</div>
<div><b>To: </b>Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of
biomass</div>
<div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test
char-making stoves (attn:<br>GACC
testers)</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<div id="_originalContent"><base href="x-msg://10535/">
<div>Crispin and list</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>#1. You have added only extraneous material re naming,
China, kilns. You did not at all address the issue of treating
char-making stoves fairly.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>#a. Same response. You did not address the topic of
differentiating between char-making stoves. Apparently you are
happy that your money making stove in Indonesia will receive a report
that says nothing about the char produced?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>#b1 Same response. You have a typo "<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i>for
a that stove</i>" </span>that precludes a definitive
answer since I don't know whether to strike "a" or "the". I
continue to believe that the present approach being used by Jim
reports everything you ask for - and always has. The only new
material I know about I am delighted with - the amount of char and the
energy in the char is specifically now provided. It was always
there, but hidden. Char-making stove people couldn't be happier
with this small change in reported results.</div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><br></span></div>
<div>#b2 -i You write about the formula A/(B-C):
"... <span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">it
has been misleading people ever since it was introduced"</span></div>
<div> I agree. - but for opposite
reasons than you. It undervalues the production of char.
I am willing to let it ride, since my preference is also being
shown.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> - ii You write: "<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i> </i></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i>Char?
Fine, if it too can be burned as fuel. If it is not usable, it is not
fuel. Same as ash as far as that stove is concerned."
</i></span>I am sorry that you don't see how
unfair this statement is to char-making stoves -- where people
(including you) can make money on the char - whether used as fuel or
put in the ground. You are taking income away from the poorest
with your stance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> - iii Your last sentences: <span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i>The
WBT was changed and that was the major point of Jim’s recent webinar
to which you posed a number of questions and which he answered
repeatedly. </i></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
</span>[RWL: And I was happy with all the answers.]</div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i>I
am again answering that same question. </i></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
</span><i style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </i><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </span>[RWL:
With answers different from Jim's]</div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><i>The
fuel consumption considers whether or not the remaining fuel is fuel
for that same stove. If it is not, it shall be considered
consumed.</i></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
</span><i style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </i><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </span>[RWL:
You are (I think) the only one saying this should be the rule.
Certainly no-one who thinks making char in a stove is better
economically and environmentally - regardless of where it ends up.
Of course for climate reasons I want it to go in the ground,
but I started on this topic in the early 1990s just to save
trees. Char-making stoves can do both, but since char-makig
stoves are more efficient and cleaner, char-using stoves are on their
way out.</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="EN-CA" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div style="page: WordSection1" class="WordSection1">
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">End
of short story. Take it up with Jim if you do not agree with this
reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote>
<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </span>[RWL:
I see no need to. I think Jim is handling "reality"
correctly and has already said so on this list several times.]
<div>
<div lang="EN-CA" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div style="page: WordSection1" class="WordSection1">
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><br></span></div></div></div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 22, 2013, at 5:56 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" lang="EN-CA" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div style="page: WordSection1" class="WordSection1">
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dear
Ron<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">></span>Crispin
and stoves list (again ignored - why?)<o:p></o:p></div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p></o:p></div></div>
<div>
<div style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt 36pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New
Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span>1.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span>The "game"
I am playing is to ensure that charcoal-making stoves are
treated fairly. Saying that existing char at the end of a run
has been "consumed" is not fair.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">How
do you suggest we term the fuel that enters a stove once, each time
the stove is operated through a burning cycle? Should that be the
fuel consumed? The fuel needed per cycle? The fuel use? The fuel
demand? Give it a name and let’s see how it
flies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">We
are speaking of course of raw biomass in this case. Whatever biomass
goes into a stove, per cycle, drawn from the available supply, and
which needs to be drawn again the next time, needs a
name.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">In
the strict sense of the word ‘consumed’ it has been consumed as far
as that stove is concerned. In another sense, from an outside
perspective which can see additional uses for that remainder,
whether it be ashes or char, it has ‘produced something’. No
problem. One can view it that way, but it will not change the raw
fuel demand for a new cycle unless some of it is fuel to that same
stove. There is no other practical way to communicate to people the
amount of fuel a stove requires to be harvested and provided each
day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">In
China they have a test that runs for a month. A stove is installed
and cooked upon each day for a month. The amount of fuel it consumes
during that month is calculated. Then they know what the fuel
consumption really is. If there is a huge pile of char left
afterwards, they do not consider that an ‘efficiency’. I can’t say I
am surprised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">If
you are in the char making business, you still have to consider how
many cubic metres of trees are needed each day. That is the raw fuel
consumption of the char making kiln. The char produced is not a raw
fuel efficiency, it is the output efficiency of the char making
process. No problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">We
both owe a duty of care to the people buying and promoting stoves to
correctly report the amount of biomass that is needed to fuel the
stove per cycle or per day or per
month.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p></o:p></div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">2.
Under a) - I repeat my original claim - you have no test in
mind that will differentiate between char-making stoves. If
char is there, it has not been "consumed".<o:p></o:p></div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Well
you can read the above again if you like. If there is char
remaining<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>that is
not fuel for the stove from which it came</i>, it comes from fuel
which the stove consumed. Word it as you like. I thought you would
be asking for a report on the char production efficiency with a
rating on the energy content per kg and the % volatiles. That would
make sense if you wanted to sell it for income. I am hoping to do
exactly that in an area of Indonesia where there are many candle nut
shells. It makes really good charcoal fuel when burned in a TLUD
which people can sell for income.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">When
assessing the fuel consumption of the TLUD that makes that char, we
will get the mass of fuel consumed per cycle, the energy content and
rate it accordingly. Another stove that burns the same fuel and
cooks the same amount and produces no char will consume a lot less
raw material. All we are doing is reporting how much the stove
consume per cycle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">3.
Under b) - The key sentences are your final two:
<i> </i><i><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The
direct cause is that the more char produced, the less fuel was
claimed to have been consumed, which is clearly untrue. That is why
the WBT was changed." </span></i>If char
exists, the claim of less fuel is "clearly true", not
"<i>clearly untrue". <span style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">My
claim is related to the amount of raw biomass needed to be put into
the stove each time it is used. Your claim is to view the char
remaining as fuel. This may or may not be true for a particular
stove. If that char is fuel for a that stove, then the char can be
credited as unburned fuel. The point is to tell the prospective
buyer what the raw fuel consumption is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Further,
the use of the formula A/(B-C) goes back at least to VITA days
and is in there today. On this main point under dispute, the
WBT was NOT changed (thank goodness). Or if I am wrong, please
give a cite.<o:p></o:p></div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Yes
it does go back that far and it has been misleading people ever
since it was introduced. It was written on the basis that the
desired measurement was<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>not</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>the raw fuel consumed each
cycle, but the efficiency with which the heat was developed in the
fire and transferred to the pot. That is why it was called (in those
tests) the ‘heat transfer efficiency’. It isn’t really the
heat transfer efficiency, but it was given that name. The heat
transfer efficiency is a useful number for stove designers. When
making changes like pot to stove clearance the number will change.
But it is not and never was the fuel consumption figure, even for
the fry fuel consumption, because the consumption depends on what
happens to the fuel remaining. If it is long sticks that can be
burned tomorrow, fine, it is unburned fuel. Char? Fine, if it too
can be burned as fuel. If it is not usable, it is not fuel. Same as
ash as far as that stove is concerned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The
WBT was changed and that was the major point of Jim’s recent webinar
to which you posed a number of questions and which he answered
repeatedly. I am again answering that same question. The fuel
consumption considers whether or not the remaining fuel is fuel for
that same stove. If it is not, it shall be considered
consumed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">End
of short story. Take it up with Jim if you do not agree with this
reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></div><p style="MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br><!--end of _originalContent --></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<hr>
_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing
list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 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><br><br>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br><br></blockquote><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <br><pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre></blockquote><br></div>_______________________________________________<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>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></blockquote></div><br></div><div>
<br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><hr><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>_______________________________________________<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>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>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>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>