<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23532">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You are looking at things through the wrong end of the
telescope. :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Char from a TLUD is perhaps 90% Char and 10% ash, while
char from a "Full Combustion Stove might be 1% to 10% of the ash pit
content. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>One might easily pick out a few larger lumps of char from
ash, but sifting through the ash to get the smaller pieces is indeed a messy
job. As you state below..."<FONT face="Times New Roman">I am not arguing a
point. I am stating a fact." :-)</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The issues here are:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1: Testing "Full Combustion Stoves"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2: Testing "Char making Stoves"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Before you close down the discussion, would you kindly
address the following questions that I have asked you twice
previously?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT face=Arial>What would you think about the
following proposal for "stove testing rules"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT face=Arial>1: Stove Manufacturers shall state
whether their stove is a "full burning stove" or a "char producing
stove.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT face=Arial>2: "Full burning stoves" shall
have a "Fuel Efficiency Test."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT face=Arial>3: "Char producing stoves" shall
have BOTH a "Fuel Efficiency Test", and an "Energy Efficiency
Test."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix> </DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT face=Arial>Does that sound practical, fair
and reasonable to you?</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Note that the "Energy Efficiency Test" required for Char
Producing Stoves would require a calorimetric determination of the char
production, to confirm the actual energy content lost to the char. I feel it
would be unfair, un-necessary, and wasteful to burden "Full Combustion
Stoves" with the cost and nuisance of such tests. However, such tests would
indeed be meaningful and helpful for Char making Stoves.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You bring up the point that "... <FONT
face="Times New Roman">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.</FONT>...". Note that the fuel
Efficiency of a "Char Making Stove" cannot properly be credited with the energy
in the char that was used to fuel a Charcoal Stove. The Charcoal Stove is a
"second stove" and it should be tested for its "Fuel Efficiency", and the second
stove should rise or fall on its own merits. Charcoal used as
biochar ceases to be a stove concern. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul Oliver has outlined a wonderful set of circumstances,
where people can buy rice hulls, do their cooking, and sell the char production
for more than their fuel cost. There is certainly a place for "Char Producing
Stoves" Is Paul Oliver's "Char Making Stove" design better than other Char
Making Stoves"? A good set of science based tests would enable the Stove Buyer
to decide which was the best "Char Making Stove" to buy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin</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=psanders@ilstu.edu href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Paul Anderson</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> Friday, October 25, 2013 12:34
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>
<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">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
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">kchisholm@ca.inter.net</A>> wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ronal W.
Larson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=kchisholm@ca.inter.net
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Kevin</A> ;
<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 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>
<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>