<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Philip, Crispin, Ron and all,<br>
<br>
Philip wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">However,
the biogas reactor would produce two useful products – the
biogas itself and the biogas residue, and its efficiency would
then be the energy in the biogas plus the energy in the useful
residue divided by the energy in the biomass fed.</span></blockquote>
So you are saying that there can be two numbers added together in
the numerator, right? Add the char energy to the numerator but do
not subtract the char energy from the demoninator. I will let you
and Ron and Crispin and others comment on that.<br>
<br>
**********<br>
Concerning Crispin's analogy about the car that is leaking gasoline,
that is a weak comment. Crispin consistently wants to make FUEL
equal to ENERGY. That is not the case with the car's gasoline or
with fires that purposely make charcoal.<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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/7/2017 1:59 AM, Philip Lloyd
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:03cc01d28118$20d083a0$62718ae0$@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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;
line-height:106%;
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
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;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.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;}
--></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;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
did not say that anything left behind after the cooking task
should be wasted – I said it should not be counted as a
benefit to the cooking task. The cooking efficiency is the
useful energy delivered for cooking divided by the energy in
the raw fuel fed. You could have another useful energy – I
used the example of space heating, the efficiency of which
is the useful space heat energy delivered divided by the
energy in the raw fuel fed. The efficiency of useful char
production is the energy in the useful char divided by the
energy in the fuel fed. You could have a system that cooks,
heats space and also produces some useful char – its
efficiency would be the sum of the three separate
efficiencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
your biogas example, the cooking efficiency is the useful
energy for cooking divided by the energy in the biogas fed.
However, the biogas reactor would produce two useful
products – the biogas itself and the biogas residue, and its
efficiency would then be the energy in the biogas plus the
energy in the useful residue divided by the energy in the
biomass fed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hope
that clarifies things<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;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" style="line-height:normal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> 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> Monday, February 6, 2017 9:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove
testing ---- was Re: ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal">Lloyd,<br>
<br>
My response here can be easily ignored. But it might help
clarify the situation of char-making stoves (TLUDs).<br>
<br>
Your comments say that whatever energy value is left behind
after the cooking task is completed should be counted as if it
were wasted energy (unless it will be used for cooking, which
is not the case I am presenting.)<br>
<br>
Biomass has energy.<br>
<br>
When that biomass is wet, and is placed into a biodigesto<b>r
for</b><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
</span></b><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">anaerobic
conversion into combustible gases (called biogas),</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
</span>there is a lot of energy remaining in the digestor.
Does all of that unconverted energy get charged against the
efficiencies of cooking with biogas?<br>
<br>
Oh. And extreme case? Not a case of combustible fuel? Only
look at the biogas (not the source "stuff")?? Essentially
"woodgas" is the same as "biogas" because both were derived
from biomass, but the cooking is done with the gases, not with
the biomass itself.<br>
<br>
Splitting hairs? Playing with definitions? Maybe. But
something to think about.<br>
<br>
And I constantly object to Crispin's (and other's) switching
between FUEL measurements and ENERGY measurements when not all
of the energy is extracted from the fuel ON PURPOSE.<br>
<br>
Personally, I am caring less and less about what is in the
equations. There is still much more info to come about the
success of the char-producing clean-burning TLUD woodgas
stoves that are being strongly accepted in very poor areas in
West Bengal, India, with a business model that includes
financial sustainability with carbon credits or simply with
some financial inputs such as have gone to other types of
stoves but not to TLUDs. <br>
<br>
(Please note that the prevoius sentence did not use the terms
WBT or ISO or the other stuff that is getting all the
discussion. Nor am I taking sides with Ron or others about
subtracting the energy value of charcoal from the
demoninator.)<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal">On 2/6/2017
12:57 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;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Ron</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
would like you to know that Crispin’s position on the
char-deducting formula is supported by most of those
working on ISO TC 285. He is definitely not a lone voice
crying in the wilderness.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
is absolutely no doubt that the formula is wrong, if you
are trying to talk cookstove energy efficiency.
Thermodynamics defines energy efficiency in terms of
useful energy delivered/ energy input, and that is the
gross energy input, not some net figure. In the case of
cooking, it is the energy used in cooking divided by the
energy in the raw fuel fed to provide the cooking heat.
If the solid stream remaining at the end of a cooking
sequence still has some components such as char that could
provide additional energy, then if they can be put back in
the stove for use in a later cooking sequence, there is no
impact on the cooking efficiency, but if they are removed
from the cooking system then they represent a loss and the
cooking efficiency is reduced relative to what it would be
if all the fuel fed were reduced to ash. That’s the
science, and all arguments to the contrary fail.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">An
analogy may make this clearer. Some cookstoves also
provide useful space heating. In this case the efficiency
of use of fuel for cooking and heating is (useful heat
provided for cooking + useful heat released for space
heating)/energy in fuel fed. The efficiency for cooking
remains useful heat provided for cooking/energy in fuel
fed, and the efficiency for space heating is useful heat
released for space heating/energy in fuel fed, and the two
efficiencies are additive as they should be – and which
they wouldn’t be if the CDF were correct. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Please
accept that the cdf is DEAD.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Prof
Philip Lloyd</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Energy
Institute, CPUT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">SARETEC,
Sachs Circle</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Bellville</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Tel
021 959 4323</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cell
083 441 5247</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PA
Nadia 021 959 4330</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;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"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> 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>Ronal W. Larson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 6, 2017 5:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass; Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove
testing ---- was Re: ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">List and Crispin<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>The following in response to Crispin’s message of
last night (delayed in part by the Super Bowl - sheesh -
what an ending!)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>Inserts below.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 5, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dear
Ron</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">“…</span></b>I went a lot further
reporting on the test experts I talked to at ETHOS
- NONE of whom agreed with Crispin on the topic of
this reply - the way to handle char in reporting
efficiencies. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
provides a comment on the poor understanding of
the principles of engineering and performance
rating amount those who you contacted at ETHOS.
It is sad that those how claim to lead are so at
sea when it comes to making such simple
determinations. Perhaps you are not aware that
the ‘char-deducted formula’ is unique in the
world when reporting the % of fuel energy
delivered as ‘work’.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL1’: Re sentences #1 and #2 - it is truly
amazing that ALL of the experts on this topic are
incorrect - and only you have the true knowledge. It
reminds me of the way the “97%” of climate change
experts are dismissed by deniers.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>Re sentence #3 - you are correct - I
am “<i>unaware</i>” of the uniqueness - because it is
not true. As one example, the CSI methodology used in
the Philippines uses it. The CSU methodology does
(incidentally, Jessica Tryner’s doctoral thesis
includes this CDF = “<i>char-deducting formula</i>” -
and is terrific). </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I hope readers will note that below
there is NO mention of how Crispin would handle the
situation of most interest to those of us working with
TLUDs - using something other than the CDF for
tier placement purposes. I say the CDF undervalues
char when looking at tiers - but I can live with it.
Crispin is silent on how to merge char making and
tiers - repeat TIERS, not the CDF alone.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>The CDF is not different in principle
than subtracting the energy in unused wood (or do you
think that should not be allowed also?)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Char
making is not ‘work’ when it comes to cooking
energy delivered.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL2’: We are getting off topic here, but
since it takes energy to make char (about double that
retained in the char), www could argue about whether
this is “work:.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">>John Mitchell supports the
existing “denominator equation” - as does EVERYBODY
I talked to at the ETHOS conference. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Ditto
– if true, it is significant that the ETHOS
participants you discussed this with do not follow
this list, read about the problems and understand
the implications, or consider that scientific
norms should apply to stove testing.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL3’: Right, because you say so, we
should disregard all the other expert statements (I mean
official in the TAG discussions - not on this list or at
ETHOS). </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I can assure you the experts at ETHOS have
been reading this list. EVERY one I talked to was
fully aware of the controversy. You underestimate (and
insult) their ability as well to “<i>understand the
implications or consider the scientific norms…”</i></b><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">><b>[RWL1: I am
agreeing with decades of usage to make the “<i>cooking
efficiency metric number"</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>more
accurate. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
cooking efficiency is the ratio of cooking
energy to the energy in the fuel fed into
the stove. Comparing the rating of two
stoves calculated on that basis gives a
direct comparison of the fuel consumption to
accomplish a task. More on that below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL4’: You would be correct if that was
the accepted method of comparing stoves. The accepted
method, when char was trivial, is/has been to make the
CDF calculation more accurate (less unexplained
variation). </b><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>The ONLY accurate
denominator is one with the char being
subtracted - as the ratio is the heat into
the cook pot divided by the total energy
that COULD BE available for that measure of
energy into the cookpot. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
is a description of the heat transfer
efficiency. It is unfortunate you are not
learning from this interchange. I have
explained in detail how to calculate the
heat transfer efficiency and it starts by
deducting the char energy (all of it, not
just some recoverable portion). You are
calling the heat transfer efficiency the
cooking efficiency. That is the root of the
problem. They are different when the stove
produces a solid residue containing
unreleased energy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL5’: I have no idea why you are claiming
that I am “<i>calling the heat transfer efficiency the
cooking efficiency”. </i>If you would leave all
of the exchange instead of cherry-picking it, our
audience would see that In my sentence labeled “RWL1”
above, where I have “<i>cooking efficiency metric
number” </i> in quotes, I did so because your
immediately preceding sentence (from the 4th) was "</b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">You
want to increase the cooking efficiency metric
number by deducting the energy content of the
recovered char energy, is that correct?</span></i><i><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">”
</span></i><b>So you use a term “improperly",
then accuse me of its improper usage, even though I
had it in quotes. The “<i>root of the problem” </i>(your
term, not mine) is your unwillingness to give char the
credit it needs in the only equation around for
setting tier levels.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>Energy that is in the
char was NOT available to go into the cookpot.
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
is why it is deducted when calculating the
heat transfer efficiency.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL6’: And it is this <i>“heat
transfer efficiency”</i> quantity that is being used
in the setting of the tier levels. So why are we
arguing? The quantity you insist is the only one that
is important is already being obtained and reported.
The issue is tiers - and you are not addressing that
topic.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>It HAS to
be subtracted to get a valid efficiency when
you are running different tests with
relatively arbitrary and unintentional
amounts of char being produced.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
is correct, if you want to calculate the
heat transfer efficiency.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL7’: Yes I want to calculate that efficiency
- because it is the one used for setting tiers. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b> Is the problem that you object to tiers?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>You are the only
person I have heard say this is improper.
Your view has been dismissed by dozens of
others - especially in “official”polling.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Obviously
you are not in all conversations on the
matter. You are in no position to conduct an
‘official poll’. Science does not operate on
‘official polls’ of people whether or not
they are informed on the subject. In fact,
opinion counts for little in a mathematical
calculation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>[<b>RWL8’: All four of these sentences are
off-base. 1): I never said I was in “all”
conversations; I reported what was said to me at
ETHOS., 2) Official polls have been conducted (and you
have lost by votes of roughly 30:1); I didn’t conduct
these or claim to have done so; 3) Agreed that science
doesn’t operate with polls, but ISO groups do, because
one person in the group can be holding up progress; 4)
You have agreed a few lines up that the equation in
question (used to establish tiers) is OK - so why are
you raising an issue of opinions?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
class="apple-tab-span"><b>> </b></span><span
class="apple-converted-space"><b> </b></span><b>I
think the “denominator equation” formula
undervalues (not overvalues) the energy in
the char. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
equation does not report the cooking
efficiency, nor the energy in the char nor
its fraction of the original energy. It is
an error to use it for anything. It has no
standard name because it is not accepted as
a standard calculation save as a rough guide
to the heat transfer efficiency, which I
remind you was the original intention of the
authors of the VITA test. The approach was
used in a much more refined form in the BUCT
paper of 1 year ago. When it was pointed out
on this list that the calculation of the
relative fuel consumption was in error
because of this, one of the authors, Kirk
Smith, made a comment on this group that the
error would be corrected ‘if the paper was
published’. In fact the paper was already
published. The error is to think that the
relative heat transfer efficiencies of two
stoves is the same as the relative fuel
consumptions. This error is common to the
WBT (all versions) the CCT and the KPT.
(With the KPT it is only considered in
certain circumstances so there is a caveat
there – the KPT sometimes gives the correct
answer.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL9’: You continue to make no sense. First
you say (above) : <i>“</i></b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
is correct, if you want to calculate the heat
transfer efficiency.</span></i><i><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Then you turn around and say (second
sentence above) </b><i>“It is an error to use it for
anything.”</i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>If you give a cite to the “<i>BUCT paper of 1
year ago”, </i>I’ll read it.<span
class="apple-tab-span"> </span>Despite your
inferences, I think we have already established that
Kirk Smith is OK with this equation - and certainly the
Berkeley Air Monitoring Group (BAMG) is.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>It </b>says the
inefficiency is larger than it is.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
formula doesn’t calculate the inefficiency
of anything.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL10’: In my world (I have been primarily
involved in energy matters since 1973), inefficiency is
the complement of efficiency: i = 1-e.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>> I accept the
formula only because the tier structure is
based on its use. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">You
are correct that the tier structure (which
has its own additional defects) is based on
the WBT 4.1.2. which miscalculates the
cooking efficiency. I invite you and
everyone else on this list to obtain one of
the (at least) three versions of the WBT
4.1.2 and run a set of measurements through
it to get the ‘thermal efficiency’. Then
run the same set of measurements through v
4.2.3 and see what the answer is. Be amazed.
To get the real answer, delete the contents
of the ‘char’ cell and set the char catching
container to zero. Compare that with the
other results. Be shocked.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL11’: Again, you put the effort off onto the
reader. Why don’t you just show the results? Some of
us have other things to do than run around looking for “<i>three
versions of the WBT 4.1.2.”. </i>You are correct that
I will be “<i>amazed/shocked”</i> if anything related to
charcoal and the tier system is different in any of
these procedures. So please enlighten us with your
demonstration.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>I would have been
happier with a tier structure based on
overall efficiency, but I know that is
impractical - especially at this late date.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Interesting.
So getting the correct answer is not
important, expediency is? How long would you
be willing to wait under normal
circumstances?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL12’: I am misusing my time in this endless
exchange because the correct answer IS important. I
have no idea what you are driving at in the
last sentence. Your wasting everyone’s time claiming
that charcoal is being mishandled and the right answer
is to drop char computations when placing a stove into
tier structure does not seem “<i>normal</i>” to me
(reminding you and this readership that you are
routinely out-voted by 30:1 (as you have yourself also
implied a few messages back)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">>>This
deduction raises the reported fuel
efficiency.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>[RWL: For small
amounts of char it makes the
reported efficiency more accurate. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">No,
it mis-reports the metric that claims to
represent the fuel consumption. The more
char you make, the greater the
misrepresentation of the fuel economy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL13’: That is your belief on “<i>mis-reports/misrepresentation”</i>.
The rest of the world seems to believe the CDF/WBT is
the best/only equation around - especially for
establishing tiers. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>And I support the tier structure as
being important at this early point in (possibly) moving
to standards. Please tell us how you feel about tiers.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>It undervalues the
overall (more than heat transfer)
efficiency of stoves that are trying to make
char.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">You
are correct on this point insofar as the
formula does indeed calculate the heat
transfer efficiency (or a reasonable proxy
of it). I am not cure why you have
contradicted your earlier points above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL14’: I see no contradiction. Perhaps you
are not reading closely enough. I presume “cure”
should be “sure” - but maybe there is something else
possible here. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>Please expand on “reasonable proxy”.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>The great point here is that we are in
agreement on what the CDF is doing. I did not expect
this sentence.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">>>Are
you OK with that as the result?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>[RWL: Marginally.
Only in the tier heat rating sense.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">So
having the wrong answer is not an issue as
long as the heat transfer efficiency tiers
are not changed? Did you ever buy a product
based on the heat transfer efficiency?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL15’: Of course getting a wrong answer is an
issue. That is why I am willing to argue with you (and
will continue to do so). Your view oj the unimportance
of char needs to be fought. Yes - I have bought many
products on the basis of heat transfer efficiency -
thank god that the EPA has provided those numbers.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">></span><b>Example:
If energy into the boiling water and
charcoal each are one-third, then the sum of
all inefficiencies MUST also be one-third. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
is incorrect. Please read on.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL16’: If my value of 1/3 is incorrect, it
would seem incumbent on someone claiming so to give us
the right answer. Good lord! I do not see a
corrected answer below.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>You argue for a heat
transfer efficiency of 1/3 (dropping all
consideration of the char). </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">No,
I argue that the cooking efficiency is 1/3.
Please correct your misunderstanding.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL17’: This exchange, from my perspective,
is about tiers, which are based on this CDF equation.
I see no “<i>misunderstanding”</i> on my part to
correct. And if I have a “m<i>isunderstanding”, </i>it
seems to be widely shared. <i> </i> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I repeat that I see none or very few on
your side of any part of this argument. Since you are
not convincing me, I invite someone else to explain it
better,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>The “denominator
equation” (used by everyone but yourself as
near as I can determine) says the “heat
transfer efficiency” is (1/3)/(1-1/3) = (1/3)
/ (2/3) = 1/2. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">First,
virtually no one outside the USA uses this
formula in any official capacity (CDM/Gold
Standard excepted) , and within the USA it is
shunned for regulatory purposes by the EPA.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>RWL18’: I ask for a citation for this <i>“shunned”
</i>statement<i> </i>. John Mitchell and Jim Jetter
(both of EPA) strongly support this CDF equation - as
well as everyone else I have queried.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Second,
that is how to calculate the heat transfer
efficiency, not the cooking efficiency.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL19’: I have found nothing in the
literature on the WBT (I again recommend 4 cites by
Jim Jetter that a I gave a week or so ago), to say the
equation in question should be called a “cooking
efficiency”. I see no reason to start calling the CDF
equation in question a “cooking” equation - and again
note that you have earlier called this equation a heat
transfer efficiency equation. Your <i>“cooking
efficiency”</i> equation is already being used and
reported. It would help this dialog a lot if you
would explain how your preference on reporting can
help with tiers.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>I can live with this,
but I also think it important to say that the
inefficiency is NOT also 1/2. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
formula does not calculate an inefficiency, it
calculates the heat transfer efficiency. The
heat transfer efficiency is not useful for
calculating fuel savings.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL20’: In the EE world I have inhabited for
quite a few decades, efficiencies are the ONLY way “<i>for calculating
fuel savings”. </i>I hope you can show us a method
for avoiding that term/quantity.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>The
overall efficiency, when one is trying to
produce char, is 1/3 +1/3 = 2/3. This last is
clearly NOT the “heat transfer efficiency”</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Correct.
It is not the heat transfer efficiency. It
does not have a name as you are adding the
cooking efficiency to the % of energy in the
original fuel that was not burned. As I
pointed out to you and Paul, this metric is
non-standard and does not have a name.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL21’: I see no problem with calling
this “2/3” number the “overall efficiency”. I dispute
that this metric is “non-standard”, as it is the ONLY
way to get the inefficiency value (here of magnitude
1/3).</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>but the
overall efficiency should be reported as well
if we are trying to promote more valuable
stoves, and it is not being reported.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">What
do you consider to be the ‘overall
efficiency’?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL22’: I think you are not reading carefully
enough. it is 2/3 in this example.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">><b>Now the reverse
question - WHY are YOU so unhappy with the
subtraction in the denominator? </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Because
as applied in the WBT (all versions) it gives
a misleading number which is used to calculate
the relative fuel savings of stoves, comparing
them with a baseline product. It gives the
wrong answer. You indicated above that while
the cooking efficiency is 1/3 and the WBT
reports it to be ½, you are OK with that
misrepresentation. I am not.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>[<b>RWL23’: You continue to avoid the “why”
question. It is not enough to call it “<i>misleading</i>”
or a “<i>misrepresentation</i>”. A lot of
knowledgeable people have concluded that tiers
are appropriate at this time for improved stoves and
this CDF equation is the right/only one. You offer no
alternative.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>Is it your
opinion that this char production was an
inefficiency? </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In
standard terms char production is reported as
a % of the dry fuel input. Where it is not a
desired product, it is a mechanical loss.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL24’: Now we have gotten to the bottom of
the issue. For you, char is NOT a “<i>desired product”.
</i> Pity. But consistent with every other
comment over at least a decade on the relationships
between you and charcoal. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I see no reason to call char a “mechanical
loss” - neither mechanical nor loss.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>You have expressed
great unhappiness with the “denominator
equation”, but I don’t recall ever seeing a
reason. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Then
you have not been reading my posts.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL25’ : Obviously I have been reading your
posts - primarily to protect char-making. I contend
that you have again not given a reason other than your
(much-disputed) put down on char.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>The purpose
of including a char term in the denominator is
NOT to say anything about char - it is to get
at the POTENTIAL heat transfer efficiency. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">There
is no such metric as the ‘potential heat
transfer efficiency’ except to say that it is
always 100%, until the stove is tested.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL26’: Yup - 100% IS possible - as soon as
we find a way to eliminate losses via
conduction, radiation, and convection (and char-making).
Are you sure you want to hang your full argument on
dismissing the CDF (your term - see above) based on this
100% absurdity.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>To repeat - too many
will think that char-making stoves are much
less efficient than they really are.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">When
it comes to fuel efficiency, char making
stoves are usually much less fuel-efficient
than stoves that burn all the char. As usual,
you are looking for some way to over-report
the fuel efficiency by pretending the char is
unburned ‘fuel’.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL27’: First sentence not true (relative to “<i>much
less”);</i> many of the EPA tests are showing BOTH a
fuel saving and char production. You were in such
a discussion yesterday with Paul Anderson.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>Re second sentence, I have been
consistently saying that the CDF under-reports. If I
had my way I would base tiers on the “Overall” (i.e.
2/3 efficiency value). </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I see very few people agreeing with you
that the CDF <i>“over-reports</i>” anything. I think
you are again here repeating that char “<i>is not
a desired product”.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Then,
you plan to bury the char in the ground
(proving it was not ‘fuel’ after all) to
accomplish what others call ‘sequestering
carbon’.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL28’: I think I have been clear on that -
as means of both helping stove users and of being an
important start at much larger CDR (carbon dioxide
removal) - what I consider to be the world’s #1 problem.
Thanks for bringing </b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> <i>‘sequestering
carbon’</i> </span><b>into the dialog. But you are
missing the soil benefits - of huge benefit to
all potential char-making stove users.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
</b><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Using
your example above:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Cooking
efficiency: 1/3</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Char
energy retention, based on the recoverable
mass of the solid residue: 1/3</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Heat
transfer efficiency: 2/3</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>[<b>RWL29’: What would you call the CDF
equation result of 1/2? </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b> Also, I see no way that your
number “2/3” can be called a heat transfer efficiency.
In the future, much of this valued (for
soil improvement purposes) char will be going into the
ground. Why should it be called “heat transfer
efficiency? (I used the term heat transfer efficiency
[1/2] because it is NOT the value of 2/3 (which you are
[surprisingly] using).</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Two
stoves both have a cooking efficiency of 1/3.
One of them makes some measurable amount of
char. Applying the WBT formula raises the<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>reported<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>cooking
efficiency (not the actual cooking
efficiency). The actual cooking efficiency
shows that both stoves require exactly same
amount of raw fuel to cook. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL30’: I disagree with your second sentence.
The WBT formula does NOT raise <i>“the reported cooking
efficiency”.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b><i>
</i></b></span><b>You continue to avoid the concept of
tiers - which can’t possibly be developed with anything
related to your term “cooking efficiency”.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Applying
the WBT formula one finds that the char-making
stove </span><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span
style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">disclaimed</span></span><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">to
require less fuel to complete the cooking
task.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> [RWL31’: NO. It says that
IF char (valuable its own right) had not been produced,
then more heat would have been transferred (or more
cooking). This is independent of whether the char
amount was small or large, intentional of
unintentional. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I don’t understand the term “disclaimed”.
Was this supposed to be “is claimed”?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">That
claim is false. People are being induced to
pay for a reduction in fuel use on the basis
of the WBT calculation. They are being
defrauded with false claims of fuel saving. I
don’t believe you are ‘OK’ with this
situation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL32’: I suggest, with your “<i>don’t
believe</i>”, that you aren’t paying attention to what
I am saying. I repeat for the benefit of you
and anyone reading this that I AM <i>“OK” with this
situation.” </i>I thank the (mostly)
volunteers working on every part of this ISO exercise. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>Aside: In about an hour, I will be
listening in on an announced two hour call on the WG3
work product (for field testing) - where this same
equation will be discussed and (presumably) endorsed.
This is NOT a topic related only to the WBT.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Ron<br>
<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Crispin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:purple">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:purple">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information
see our web site:<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:purple">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><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" style="line-height:normal"><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>