<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" lang="en-GB" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"> <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></body></html>