<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Crispin,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">A very important comment! Stove1 did not "produce fuel".
That is a misconception. The fuel was produced by the forest.
Stove1 extracted some of the energy available from the fuel and
changed its appearance. </div>
.....
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">No "fuel" was "produced". It was was always "fuel" and
some of the energy was extracted - leaving half un-released.
There is nothing to "credit". </div>
</blockquote>
The wood comes from the forest and it is fuel. If fuel is not
produced, then the charcoal (left over from the wood) also came from
the forest. If it has value as fuel, charcoal should not be
penalized or discounted because it no longer has the same
characteristics as wood.<br>
<br>
**********<br>
This discussion might never end. And certainly the debate about
crediting stoves with production of BIOCHAR will assure debate for a
very long time. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
"Efficiency is in the calculations of whoever finalizes the
definition of efficiency." But in the end, the stove user at the
household level will have a lot to say about what stove is or is not
acceptable, with efficiencies (plural) being just some fraction of
the full consideration. <br>
<br>
Moving on.<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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/28/2015 1:34 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:COL401-EAS378AD69CF9281F654625503B1020@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dear
Paul </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">>Typographical errors: </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Noted. Thanks. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"> <br>
>Content:<br>
>Good exercise. Well done. Helpful for further
discussion. Yes, there can be cooking systems with 2 stoves
such as you describe.<br>
<br>
>But there is one issue concerning first paragraph of Item
2.5 (page 2): <br>
<br>
>The first 2 lines are fine. But it seems that the final
two lines are trying to say that fuel efficiency is the same as
energy efficiency. I read this at least 6 times. How about
some re-wording to clarify what you are saying. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">I was attempting to describe the efficiency with which
the energy supplied to the stove is delivered to the pot up to
the time the flame goes out. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
>You and I have agreed in the past that fuel efficiency and
energy efficiency are not the same. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">I cannot think of a better term at the moment. Yes it is
a change in my choice of words. While I could have chosen
'cooking efficiency' the heat might not be applied to cooking,
it could be something else. I am open to suggestions. One might
consider the space heating efficiency. The main point of the
exercise it to show that one cannot count some portion of the
energy twice. Nothing can be more than 100% efficient without
invoking magic. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">>For Stove1 the fuel efficiency is based on wood
fuel. Then for Stove2 you switch to have the fuel efficiency
based on charcoal.</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">That is correct. My major point has been communicated it
appears. The fact that the appearance of the fuel changed does
not change the energy content. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">>But you are not giving any credit to Stove1 for
having produced the fuel for Stove2. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">A very important comment! Stove1 did not "produce fuel".
That is a misconception. The fuel was produced by the forest.
Stove1 extracted some of the energy available from the fuel and
changed its appearance. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">While doing so it did some cooking. At flame-out the
remaining matter, charcoal, was no longer useful to Stove1. It
only extracted 1/2 the energy available to it and only 1/4 of
the fuel's energy was delivered to the pot. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">No "fuel" was "produced". It was was always "fuel" and
some of the energy was extracted - leaving half un-released.
There is nothing to "credit". If Stove1 was the only product
you had, 1/2 the energy was left at the end in an unusable form
(for that stove) so the next meal requires more fuel from the
forest. It is that requirement that is consuming the forest,
often unsustainably. Buying a second stove to burn the charcoal
does not increase the performance rating of Stove1. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">>And that is where Ron and I and others have been
disagreeing with you. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">So this is your chance to show how the energy in the fuel
consumed should be counted. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">It is important that you demonstrate how the two are
assessed together, as I did, and then to analyse them separately
using the same approach. Follow the energy. If the cooking
efficiency is correctly assessed, then the combination of two
stoves will be correct as well. <br>
<br>
If a different, single stove that has the fuel input of Stove1
and the remnant ash content of Stove2, and further, delivers the
same cooking energy into a pot as the combined performance of
Stoves 1+2, then the performance rating of that single stove
will be exactly the same rating as the two stove combination, as
it should be, because it did the same amount of work with the
same quantity of fuel. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">A chain of three stoves can be imagined. No correct
method of analysis can have as a result an efficiency that is
greater than all the work done divided by all the energy
available. The term 'energy efficiency' can correctly be applied
to any part of that system, or the sum of all parts. It's a
pretty good name. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">I hope a clear distinction between the energy efficiency
(or cooking efficiency) and the thermal efficiency has been
demonstrated. The thermal efficiency does not take cognisance of
the total energy available in the fuel consumed, just the energy
in the missing fuel. Thus it can't be used as a proxy for fuel
consumption as has been done for years by the WBT. Notably, the
Indian, Chinese and SeTAR test methods do not make that mistake.
There was a pre-WBT 1 test method from 'Feu de Bois' and another
from the University of Eindhoven that reported the fuel
consumption correctly. <!--end of _originalContent --></div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">While it would be nice to validate the WBT results as
'fuel consumption', it instead reports the thermal efficiency
which is a different metric. That difference is the main reason
why WBT lab tests do not match field observations of fuel use.
A second reason for the mismatch in results is the differences
in testing context but we can leave that for another
discussion. </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br>
</div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Regards </div>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Crispin </div>
<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:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"helvetica neue";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--><br></style>
<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>