<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Philip and all,<br>
<br>
Thank you. You have done something that was needed. Your
comments should be studied by everyone. I am in agreement with
you. My goal is for ME to understand it sufficiently. And you
have helped greatly.<br>
<br>
My comments:<br>
1. For doing the work of Bringing to Boil, the MJ/(minimum
Liters) can be seen as appropriate.<br>
<br>
2. But for the task of simmering (which is without work, or with
"no increase in enthalpy"), the calculation of Specific Fuel
Consumption (SFC) does not make sense. Wikipedia tells me that:
<blockquote type="cite">Enthalpy change accounts for energy
transferred to the environment at constant pressure through
expansion or heating.</blockquote>
At first it looks like the heat (such as from a strong fire) that
goes into the pot needs to be counted. BUT that heat then exits
the pot in the form of latent heat in the evaporated water.
Therefore, there is a net "no gain" in heat in the pot, hence no
work or no increase in enthalpy.<br>
<br>
I hope I got that reasonably right. Feel free to correct me. <br>
<br>
I hope that all readers feel free to agree or disagree with
Philip. Please do not depend on me to get the questions
clarified. I would expect that someone who advocates the WBT
usage of SFC for low power calculations will make a response. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<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 2/16/2015 1:15 AM, Philip Lloyd wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:017301d049b8$59a3c6e0$0ceb54a0$@co.za"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1240020072;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:780539348 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2006279899;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-205622696 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Paul et al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
said the simmering test was FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. When
something is fundamental, it is not something for which you
need “time for discussion.” So let me explain the
fundamental problem:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
quote the definition “</span><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Specific
Fuel Consumption – This is a measure of the amount of fuel
required to boil (or simmer) 1 liter of water. It is
calculated by the equivalent dry fuel used minus the energy
in the remaining charcoal, divided by the liters of water
remaining at the end of the test. In this way, the fuel used
to produce a useful liter of “food” and essentially the time
taken to do so is accounted for.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Specific
Fuel Consumption is listed as the IWA metric for Low Power,
which is reported in MJ/(min·L)</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">At
constant temperature - the simmering temperature – there is
no increase in the enthalpy of the water in the pot. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All
energy used is therefore used to make good [the] energy lost
from the pot by radiation, convection and conduction, and to
supply the heat required to evaporate some water. The last
of these losses is determined by the surface area of the
liquid in the pot and the lid tightness or otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">None
of these heat losses is determined by the volume of water in
the pot.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As
a result, the fuel consumption does not depend on the volume
of water in the pot, and the “Specific Fuel Consumption”
likewise is not determined by the volume of water in the
pot, only by the geometry of the pot, the material of which
it is made, and the tightness of the lid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
you can indicate to me which of these points is in error, I
will be happy to debate that point, but until you can do so,
I must maintain that the metric, and therefore the test, is
<u>fundamentally</u> wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
thought experiment is to pour all the contents of the pot,
once it has reached 3 degrees below local boiling, into a
thermos flask. It will “simmer” (remain -3 to -6 degrees
below boiling) for a long time and require no heat input at
all. A “hot box” similarly is effective because the food is
cooked with no external heat input. Neither the thermos nor
the hot box efficiency depends on the volume of liquid, only
on the effectiveness of the insulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Over
to you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
Stoves [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 16 February 2015 06:47<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] The need to continue the
discussion Re: simmer efficiency<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Philip, and to Dean and all,<br>
<br>
Philip wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
do not think we should waste much more time arguing about
them – they are fundamentally wrong. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is precisely because things are (or
might be) wrong that we need this time for discussion, even
if it is a form of arguing. To not press for clarification
(and a possible reversal) of what Dean is so staunchly
defending would be to yield to the status quo of the testing
procedures. <br>
<br>
Crispin has been rather lonely as the outspoken critic of
the status quo WBT. It is interesting to hear such a solid
support by you (Philip). It would be good to hear from
others who agree with Crispin's comment: <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
variables selected [for Low Power testing] are
inappropriately chosen. .... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Crispin and you give an incorrect
comment when saying:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">....
We have to move on.” </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The time is NOW to keep this discussion
going until there is resolution. It might take a while,
but as I see it, there are at least two CAMPS or lines of
thinking about the Low Power measurements in the stove
testing. Dean seems to present much of the thinking found
in the USA, with some (but probably not all) supporters in
the GACC and EPA. Crispin suggests that at least some
other countries and agencies are supportive of his line of
reasoning (China, Indonesia, South Africa, World Bank).
But certainly that also is not 100% locked in. <br>
<br>
Perhaps there is a totally different method or two.
Perhaps the current method and an alternative are BOTH
meaningful. But I doubt that. I am a stove designer, not
an equation-using physical-chemical scientist. So I will
win when whichever testing methodology is found to be
correct. And I am VERY CONCERNED that in 2015 we still
need this discussion and debate. But it must be
resolved!!!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
Dean commented (and I think I did not take it out of
context):<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">... the new approaches are forged by
consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Consensus" will prevail (and there will
be some who will never join the consensus). But consensus
is not to be based on democratic votes or even a slight
majority number of nations adopting some set of standards.
What must prevail is the SCIENCE associated with the testing
procedures. <br>
<br>
We should not be here trying to get votes like
politicians. We need to be hear sound scientific
arguments. So, my requests are:<br>
<br>
Philip, (and others) please help explain what is incorrect
with the Low Power testing measurements and calculations.
Most specifically, the use of a variable called "amount of
water boiled away during simmering" seems to be in
question. (also expressed as weight of water in pot at end
of simmering time).<br>
<br>
Dean, (and others) please help explain how the boiling away
of water during simmer time <u>has meaning in the
calculations</u> . We understand that evaporated water
represents heat energy that exits the system. But the
system is about maintaining a boiling point (or slightly
below), and that task is accomplished whether the
evaporation is of 0 or 100 or 300 or 500 or more grams of
water. <br>
<br>
AND we know the amount of fuel that was consumed. What is
important is the fuel consumption, and we do not need
"weight of evaporated water " to know the fuel
consumption. There is no "work" in simmering except to
keep the water in the pot from going below the minimum
allowed temperature. And the water temperature cannot
possibly go above the boiling point (unless in a pressurized
vessel, which is not an allowed consideration).<br>
<br>
To all: Please help us all to see the formulae (three of
them, for efficiency, CO and PM) that are in the current
version of the testing protocol. The document is public
and on the Internet. Please help us find the right
specific pages. I will not pretend to understand such
formulae, but with help, I want to boil it down to the issue
of the evaporated water. Does it matter? Should it
matter?<br>
<br>
I am most focused on the formula for efficiency, but all
three with survive or fall together with the understanding
of the impact of the amount of water that is evaporated
during simmering.<br>
<br>
This is NOT the time to turn away from this discussion. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/15/2015 1:43 PM, Philip Lloyd wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Dean</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Crispin
said it well:<br>
“</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
three low power metrics are invalid. The variables
selected are inappropriately chosen. The calculated
results are misleading and contrary to any claim [that]
they provide guidance for product development or
selection. We have to move on.” </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
have looked at the simmering metrics in WBT 4.3.2 and can
only concur. That is why I do not think we should waste
much more time arguing about them – they are fundamentally
wrong. Yes, stove designers need to be concerned with
simmering and turndown; no, the WBT simmering metrics do
not provide them with guidance, and can be positively
misleading, which is worse.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kind
regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip
Lloyd</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Stoves [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Still<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 06:38<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of
simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations
at ETHOS 2015</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Prof Loyd,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I pointed out, when the stoves do
the same work (hold the water at 97 C, for example) the
stove with greater heat transfer efficiency scores
better. Simmering tests are important and simmering is
an important part of cooking.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ISO process is creating new
history and approaches to old problems. Whatever emerges
will certainly be defensible as the new approaches are
forged by consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dean<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM,
Philip Lloyd <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
am concerned that this is turning into a very
fruitless discussion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On
fundamental grounds the simmering test does
not provide anything meaningful. Crispin has
demonstrated that rigorously, and others have
pointed out that the test can score an
efficient stove poorly and an inefficient
stove well, so it does not provide any useful
measure. To go on defending the indefensible
does not make sense, even if it did accentuate
the need for turndown – but that need was
always there, it was not the product of the
WBT.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We
need defensible measures of stove
performance. Can we please turn our attention
to developing those, and leave the
indefensible to history?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Prof
Philip Lloyd</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Energy
Institute</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cape
Peninsula University of Technology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PO
Box 652, Cape Town 8000</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="Tel:021">Tel:021</a>
460 4216</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Fax:021
460 3828</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cell:
083 441 5247</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Stoves [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org"
target="_blank">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 02:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of
results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos]
Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Dean, my reply is below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
2/14/2015 1:06 PM, Dean Still wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dear
Paul, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">To
do well on the Low Power Specific
Consumption metrics the stove has to have
a good Turn Down Ratio. In other words,
the stove has to have high power and low
power.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
totally agree with this. But it is not the
whole story of LPSC. Other factors influence
LPSC, especially concerning the measurement of
the variables that are used to make the
calculation. These can include the insulation
of the pot (incl. skirts), lid on pot, pot
characteristics such as size, quantity of water
in the pot at the start, and at the finish.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Specific
Consumption is based on how much energy was
used to create simmered water. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Simmered
water is not created. It was already hot at
the start of the simmer phase of testing. We
are interested in how much energy is used to
MAINTAIN the required temperature near boiling,
but preferable about 3 degrees C lower than that
boiling temperature. In fact, a
super-insulative pot could need barely a flicker
of a flame, and therefore even a well
turned-down stove could cause the water to boil
and evaporate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">If
the stove only operates at high power there
is more steam made and [at the end of
testing] less simmered water remains....<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">that
is true. but continue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">.....
so energy was used to create less product.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Stove
simmering is not creating a product. It is
maintaining a temperature. The steam that is
driven off does not represent loss of "product"
which should be understood to be "cooked food"
(and not meaning water that can be added to the
pot by any attentive cook in a household.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
like Specific Consumption because it forces
stove designers to make stoves that simmer
successfully, not just boil water. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
agree. But the measurement procedures need to
accurately document the ability to have that
strong turn-down ratio, without calculations
that can yield ambiguous or mis-leading results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">For
example, new TLUDs are better stoves because
they have both high power and low power. In
my opinion, the WBT 4.2.3 helped to create
these more successful TLUDs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">The
cause-and-effect relationship is not totally
clear. We have wanted turn-down capabilities
in TLUDs for many years. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">As
Sam says, we are working on a paper showing
characteristics of the WBT 4.2.3 for the ISO
work. Knowing the characteristics lets folks
evolve a perfect test. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
question the above wording to "evolve a perfect
test" (which is a test run, not the test
procedures.) Maybe the statement should be
that "knowing the characteristics let's folks
operate their stoves in special ways to obtain
superior results that are not realistic for
average users." OR "... let's folks 'game the
metrics' to present 'perfected' test-results
BASED ON OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND NOT ON
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STOVES THEMSELVES." <br>
<br>
OR it could be that flawed protocols /procedures
(such as dividing by the volume of remaining
water after simmering) can yield numerical
results that are questionable and perhaps
disadvantageous to the development of clean
cookstoves. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Sam
is doing great work as he crunches all the
data....<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">absolutely.
But we are questioning if the numbers are as
valid and useful as claimed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> and
gives ISO real numbers to work with in their
discussions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Concluding statement: The topic of Low Power
Specific Consumption is too important to just
brush aside the stated issues. More "expert
testimony" would be useful, including a
mathematical analysis of the impact of the parts
of the calculations. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dean<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paul Anderson
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"
target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Tom H., and to all who are
interested in proper testing of stoves.<br>
<br>
Your reply about your experiences is
helpful. Sounds like you had qualified
testing center do the testing, in
accordance with the procedures that
Crispin is questioning. Please send to
me the full details. Could be
off-list, but this is sufficiently
important that we will want the full
results known.<br>
<br>
I have a specific case of official
testing of one of my stoves with
unfavorable results for Low-Heat
Efficiency (simmering). I will add
that into the list of examples and
provide the details very soon.<br>
<br>
I invite anyone else who has something
to report about simmering efficiency to
also send details of their experiences,
either favorable or unfavorable or
neutral. <br>
<br>
The examination of the questionable
methods about simmer efficiency might
take some days, maybe weeks. But not
the months or years that this debate has
been "simmering". <br>
<br>
Remember: A testing center that
properly conducts testing using an
endorsed but possibly flawed procedure
is NOT a culprit. The culprit is the
testing protocols, <u>IF found to be
faulty. </u>And we hope that the
testing center people (employees and
leaders) who understand the technical
aspects of the calculations will be
among those who can help resolve these
serious issues.<br>
<br>
Even those who developed protocols that
are eventually shown to be faulty are
not culprits. Mistakes can be made.
However, the culprits can include those
who advocate a protocol that he or she
knows (or reasonably suspects) to be
faulty.<br>
<br>
Paul <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org"
target="_blank">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/"
target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Stoves mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<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>
</body>
</html>