<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 Crispin, Ron and all, <br>
<br>
It is interesting reading the back and forth between Ron and
Crispin. I emphasize two paragraphs from Crispin,<br>
<br>
On 2/24/2014 10:10 AM, Crispin Pembert-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:COL402-EAS196B09F7324D5BF57F4B533B1860@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">There
is no dispute between us whatsoever as to the energy
consumption: the energy remaining in the char represents
energy not liberated from the fuel consumed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The
important question is not what we want, but what the
customer of the test result wants. They are not asking how
much energy was used when cooking, they asked how much fuel
was consumed. The answer is of course different if there is
char remaining and that char is not ‘fuel’ to the same stove
for the next fire.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
For the vast majority of "customers" (including governments that
want to reduce or reverse deforestation), the important question is
"how much wood is burned." The interests are highly related to
WOOD, specifically related to TREES, not even counting sawdust that
goes into pellets.<br>
<br>
So, because TLUD stoves are VERY GOOD at burning NON-wood biomass,
the wood saved can be 100%. And we still get the char.<br>
<br>
Concerning fuel and wood and non-wood and char and other such
measurements, the real problems can come from rankings and Tiers and
other reports that could give excellent stoves some poor results
because the "authorities" are defining fuel as being exclusively
wood, as in trees and woodlands that need to be protected.<br>
<br>
If we could get past that "imposed intellectual construct" of fuel
being wood, we could make more progress about some types of biomass
stoves being even better than good for the environment. <br>
<br>
Rest assured that the advocates of alcohol and kerosene and other
NON-biomass fuels are pointing out that their stoves help minimize
deforestation/enviromental degradation. <br>
<br>
Biomass that is NOT WOOD needs to be recognized as being favorable
for saving trees, and credit given to the stoves that can use those
non-wood biomass fuels. <br>
<br>
AND that recognition and credit needs to be EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE
REPORTS ABOUT FUEL CONSUMPTION.<br>
<br>
In some ways, this is all just another discussion about why the
reported results of any stove testing need much explanation (which
is usually not provided) and why the results are so easy to ignore
as being poorly related to the realities of people and their stoves
and their fuels.<br>
<br>
I hope we can do better in the future.<br>
<br>
Paul (still another week to go on my vacation trip to Brazil,
so I probably will not be sending replies.)<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>
</body>
</html>