<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">List and cc Crispin:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Having trouble getting to sleep, I googled and found this early citation that you referenced on March 18 this year (see <a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016-March/011416.html" class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016-March/011416.html</a> for your message to this list)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/2074/2528/1/ranipre92.pdf" class="">http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/2074/2528/1/ranipre92.pdf</a>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This early paper uses the same “denominator equation” - which you decry (quoting Baldwin/VITA), but it also brings in another term called</div><div class="">ASFC = Average Specific Fuel Consumption. In the equation Mf and Mc are respectively the mass of the fuel and char; Wf is the final weight of the water.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">ASFC = (Mf-1.5* Mc)/Wf</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>(The number 1.5 is obviously a rough average ratio of energy terms such as 27 and 18 MJ/kg for char and “biomass”). I think 1.5 is a tad low.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I contend that the subtraction in the numerator here serves exactly the same function as e2 being subtracted in the denominator of the PHU or e3 equation under debate. For you to be consistent, therefore, I contend you need to say this equation is also bogus - that the mass of the charcoal should never have appeared in this equation. Is that your opinion? Or do you see no connection between PHU (or e3) and ASFC (denominator for the former, numerator for the latter)?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Ronal W. Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" class="">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">List: cc Crispin:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><snip as not being pertinent to new citation></div></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>