<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Philip,<br>
<br>
Good. Let's move this forward.<br>
<br>
Please provide the equation that puts char (that is, the energy in
the char) above the line in a way that recognizes that it is not a
loss of energy, it is only a transformation of the energy that is in
the fuel.<br>
<br>
Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the
equation that is to be provided. <br>
<br>
Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency
is not the same as fuel efficiency.<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 9/22/2017 12:28 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0349d03-6465-41a1-813b-08705de4cb04@BL2NAM02FT022.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is
wrong, spurious, faulty, unscientific. Efficency is the useful
energy produced divided by the fuel input. Char is not an input
but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency
calculation. You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a
product ( positive) and not a negative feed. Please stop trying to
use bad science to justify an untenable position. It gives the
whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterati
try to justify their abuses.<br>
Philip Lloyd<br>
<br>
Sent from my Huawei Mobile
<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br>
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson@comcast.net><br>
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>,Andrew
Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com><br>
CC: <br>
<br>
<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew
and list:<br>
<br>
I think we are in agreement on all but your last
response, where I and you say:<br>
<br>
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br>
> <br>
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a
different viewpoint<br>
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br>
<br>
<br>
RWL: Afraid I can’t agree. <br>
<br>
I can remember no Crispin statement ever in support of
char-making TLUDs, which all data shows are the
cleanest. Plenty of Crispin support for cleaner stoves
using coal - which I claim can never be justified - for
both health and climate reasons.<br>
<br>
His continued fighting against the equation e3 = e1/
(1-e2) is my major concern.<br>
Y t.v.<br>
Ron<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson<br>
> <rongretlarson@comcast.net> wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> Andrew wrote<br>
>> There might be a slight case for saying a<br>
>> gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow
(particularly lower N2)<br>
>> because the primary combustion doesn't go
to completion so less<br>
>> primary air is used, the corollary may be
that the secondary flame<br>
>> also can be burned with less excess air
because the offgas has a<br>
>> higher calorific value but not enough to
make up for using 50% less<br>
>> energy..<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to
address the term “50”<br>
> <br>
> Ronal I clarified this in my reply to Paul,
obviously it is subject to<br>
> experimental measurements but from a desk study
given that the char is<br>
> reacted at 600C AND 20% of the original biomass
dry weight remains as<br>
> char then it looks like the energy remaining in
the char is closer to<br>
> 1/3 than 1/2 of the original energy in the dry
wood.<br>
> <br>
>> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15
words.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Partially dealt with above but also what I was
meaning was that the<br>
> offgas from a TLUD, with just sufficient
primary are to maintain the<br>
> descending pyrolysis front, will be largely the
pyrolysis offgas plus<br>
> the small amount of gases from the combustion
that provides the heat<br>
> to drive the process. So it will be little
diluted by CO2 and nitrogen<br>
> than from a traditional fire which supplies
enough under grate<br>
> (primary) air to completely burn out the char.
Hence the offgas from<br>
> TLUD is of a higher calorific value and as such
needs less excess air<br>
> to maintain a clean flame. On a larger scale
with lower heat losses in<br>
> the primary region this may not be the case.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> <br>
>> Disagree with Crispin’s statement that a
case with 25% char retention<br>
>> involves “50% of the original energy” (as
did Paul Anderson).<br>
> <br>
> Also dealt with but we need corroboration from
analysis of TLUD char.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> Agree with most by Andrew - but think the
last sentence needs amplification.<br>
>> That is - lower temperature char can be a
better economic choice, even if<br>
>> “fixed carbon retention” is less. This is
better discussed on the biochar<br>
>> list. pH value is one criterion that could
point toward lower T’s.<br>
> <br>
> ...and of course lower fuel input cost would
make it more economic<br>
> even if the carbon credit paid to the producer
were based solely on<br>
> the fixed carbon.<br>
> <br>
>> <br>
>> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG
stoves do not<br>
>> have lower emissions than any solid fuel
stove.<br>
> <br>
> It seems unlikely to me that simple stoves
could have lower emissions<br>
> than a LPG flame but Crispin did say as near as
makes no difference<br>
> and good enough works for me.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> Andrew<br>
>> The trouble is I have a<br>
>> parochial view and not a good worldview of
what types of persons<br>
>> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they
also predominantly growers?<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I
disagree with Andrew calling<br>
>> himself “parochial” - when he supports (as
do I) the ethics of “a subsidy<br>
>> funded by the developed world”.<br>
> <br>
> I was referring more to my lack of experience
of stoves in the real<br>
> developing world compared with yourself,
Crispin, Nikhil and many<br>
> others.<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> So my contention is that apart from the
carbon credit there is a value<br>
>> to the land in not having to export a cash
crop.<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> [RWL10: Agree totally.<br>
> <br>
> It still means the grower needs to recognise
that exporting a<br>
> conventional cash crop is removing mineral
wealth from the holding, in<br>
> many soils with high initial fertility this may
not be significant. So<br>
> whilst the cash that the grower/stove user
might receive will be<br>
> linked to the carbon credit paid for using the
resultant char as a<br>
> soil amendment he might also value not having
to use the land for a<br>
> cash crop and possibly growing stove fuel.<br>
>> <br>
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br>
> <br>
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin
has a different viewpoint<br>
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br>
> <br>
> Andrew<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Stoves mailing list<br>
> <br>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
> <br>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use
the web page<br>
>
<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><br>
> <br>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br>
<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><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
</rongretlarson@comcast.net></aj.heggie@gmail.com></blockquote>
</aj.heggie@gmail.com></stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></rongretlarson@comcast.net></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>