<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
To Crispin and all,<br>
<br>
Crispin wrote about other tests of stoves (not the WBT water boiling
test):<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US">We
should concentrate on evaluating others. There are several.
EPTP, MWBT, CSI, BST, HTP, IS 15132 and so on and on. Let’s get
on with it.<o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
That is quite a list, including the "and so on and on." <br>
<br>
I would greatly appreciate some knowledgeable comments about how
THOSE OTHER TESTS handle the issue of charcoal that is left in the
stoves. Is there some agreement between those many tests? <br>
<br>
And be sure that the discussion relates to the stoves that
INTENTIONALLY DO LEAVE CHARCOAL BEHIND.<br>
<br>
Some useful numbers (in general) relating to char-making stoves
(specifically TLUDs), and based on dry weight of fuel and charcoal:<br>
<br>
100% of fuel (wood) includes 100% of the carbon in the fuel<br>
<br>
Charcoal (weight) yield is about 20% of the dry weight of the fuel.<br>
<br>
Char (energy) contains about 30% of the ENERGY that was in the fuel
(char is more energy-dense (by weight, not volume).<br>
<br>
Char (carbon atoms)contains about 50% of the carbon atoms of the
original fuel. <br>
<br>
The big cause of those different percentages is that wood is a
carbohydrate, which includes some oxygen and hydrogen atoms which
influence the possible energy (release and burn the hydrogen) and
influence the weight (Oxygen has weight but no energy value). <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 1/22/2017 3:36 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:YTOPR01MB02357DFB7A8C269EA31B479FB1730@YTOPR01MB0235.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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;}
/* 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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.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;}
--></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="MsoPlainText">Dear Frank<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I can add to the uncertainty, which I
think has been pretty well covered in the journal articles,
the issue of the validity of the reporting metrics themselves.
This was addressed squarely in Zhang, Y
<i>et al</i> 2014 which challenged the validity of all three
IWA low power metrics<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> .... snip.....<br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US">So
I am dropping my call for a review of the WBT 4.2.3. Looking
through the available literature, it has been done by
several groups and all a new one will show is more details
and defects. We should concentrate on evaluating others.
There are several. EPTP, MWBT, CSI, BST, HTP, IS 15132 and
so on and on. Let’s get on with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>