<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Kevin, and info to all Stovers<br>
<br>
I am tired of the banter back and forth, but something you wrote
really needs to be pointed out to show that you do not really
understand about charcoal making in TLUD stoves and others that
make a relatively high percentage of char.<br>
<br>
Kevin wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial"><strong>Recovery of
char from ash is a dirty, unpleasant job, and only desperate
people would recover char from ash for re-burning. </strong></font></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Arial">Well, the truth is that char from TLUDs
actually holds virtually all of the </font>ash in the char
particles (as is done in the traditional making of charcoal
also). There is no need to separate char from ash, and it cannot
be done without burning the char. The char can be burned
immediately (that is, not extinguished) in a charcoal stove, or
can be extinguished for saving for later burning or for placement
into soil as biochar.<br>
<br>
And if the percentage of ash needs to be calculated (once ever 100
tests maybe??), it can be easily and cleanly done be separately
burning the char to recover the ash that was in it.<br>
<br>
I am not arguing a point. I am stating a fact.<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 10/25/2013 9:11 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F6DDAF39-86E2-46F6-95A7-F2B192744A49@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
List: CC Kevin
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I presume Kevin wanted this to go to the full list.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ron<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Kevin" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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=ISO-8859-1"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="rongretlarson@comcast.net"
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">Ronal W.
Larson</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="kchisholm@ca.inter.net"
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">Kevin</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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> Friday,
October 25, 2013 12:53 AM</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>
<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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># Where fuel economy
is important, then stoves would be run in a
manner to minimize char production. </strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> I have participated in a lot of stove
testing - and users have always saved their char. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># I would suggest that
the stove tests that you have participated in
were structured so that reported results were
better when the char was recovered and its
energy content was deducted from the input fuel.
Recovery of char from ash is a dirty, unpleasant
job, and only desperate people would recover
char from ash for re-burning. A "Full Combustion
Stove" test could include screening of ash for
capture and weighing of char, to show how little
was produced, as a percentage of fuel input. A
"low percentage of char production" would be a
great selling point for Stove Buyers wanting to
maximize fuel economy. </strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Char has value, no matter how little is made.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># That is true only if
the char is put to a use where its value is
returned to the Fuel Buyer. A dollar bill has
value only if it is exchanged for goods or
services... it has no value if it is torn up and
tossed to the winds.</strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"> </font></div>
<div> If there is zero char, then there is no
extra cost.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># That is true also,
but if, as you say above, "...all stoves can
produce char..." then all stoves could be
burdened with the extra cost of detrermination
of the energy content of the char produced. A
"Full Combustion Stove" that produced say 1/2%
of fuel input weight as char would be required
to do the "char energy content test", the same
as a TLUD producing say 30% char. That makes no
sense.</strong></font></div>
<div> </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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># The Proposed Testing
Protocols are based on science and clarity, and
are intended to remove the confusion,
inaccuricies, and misdirection assocated with
past testing protocols. Comparing "accurate test
results" with "inaccurate test results" serves
no useful purpose.</strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Some char-making stoves are more efficient
(less annual input material) than many that have no
intended production. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># True</strong>. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> You need the charcoal amount to show that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># No, you don't. Just
measure fuel input required to accomplish a
given "stove task." That alone will tell you
what stove is more "Fuel Efficient."</strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Many experts have Ok'd the existing tests.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># The existing tests
have served a purpose in the past. Now, however,
the short-comings and inaccuracies of previous
tests are recognized, and are in the process of
being corrected.</strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Changing the procedures will cost time and
money.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># True. However, clear
and accurate test results will save the Funding
Agencies and Individual Stove Customers huge
amounts of money in the future by enabling the
Purchaser to select stoves that are best suited
for their intended purposes.</strong></font></div>
<div> </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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># This is perhaps a
significant part of the problems with the
present stove testing procedures... they were
configured by Stove Manufacturers, to make their
stoves look good. Testing protocols are
dishonest, if they are constructed "... to make
the efficiency numbers look better..." The
Proposed test protocols are constructed around
science, truth, and clarity.</strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Those arguing for a change have given no
good reason for that change other than saving a
small dollar amount. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># One very good reason
for changing the present stove testing protocols
is that the proposed stove testing procedures
will enable Stove Customers to purchase stoves
that are best suited to accomplishing their
targets or goals. Others who know more about
Stoves than I do can give many other good
reasons for improving the Stove Testing
Protocol.</strong></font></div>
<div> </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><font face="Arial"><strong># If someone is
attempting to build a Fuel Efficient Stove, and
if they see significant char in the ashpit, they
don't need tests to tell them that they are
doing something significantly wrong. </strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>"Char in Ash Pit =
Back to Drawing Board." </strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>On the other hand, the
designer of a "Char Making Stove" will indeed
find tests on char production and energy content
very important. However, it is unfair to burden
a Fuel Efficient Stove manufacturer with the
requirement to test the char, when he already
knows that char production will cut into the
Fuel Efficiency Rating for his stove. </strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are probably more; this list is not
intended to be exhaustive.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># I find that:</strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>1: your above points
do not justify retaining present Stove Testing
Protocols</strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>2: it is unfair and
un-necessary to burden "Full Combustion Stove
Manufacturers" with the cost of testing charcoal
for its energy content.</strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>3: that the proposed
Stove Testing Protocols will be much more
helpful to the Stove Buyer, and will greatly
help the Stove Buyer select a stove that best
meets his wants and needs.</strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong></strong></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong># If you have otrher
reasons for wanting to stay with teh present
Stove Testing Protocols, please present them for
consideration</strong>.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>Kevin</strong></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ron</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>