<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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: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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1075127669;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1093677814 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Ron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">></span><b>[RWL1: I believe the equation (to repeat: e3=e1/(1-e2) ) is not wrong, not spurious, not faulty and is scientific. <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is wrong, it is spurious, it is faulty (logically) and is therefore not scientific because science rests upon logic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>My main support is that it is currently used in the WBT in the ISO TC 2785 process. <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your “support” lends no support. It is definitely in the WBT and that is why the WBT doesn’t give correct answers to the question, “What is the fuel consumption of this stove?” It also fails to correctly answer the question, “What is the
specific fuel consumption of this stove?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>To have that status, this equation was recently endorsed by numerous experts from numerous countries (with South Africa in a small minority, I think).<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are talking through your hat, I am afraid. The equation has no support from ‘experts’ and has no support in the literature. It is an unfortunate and unique piece of junk that pollutes the stove performance space. That it still has support
in certain quarters tells us something about the supporters, not the value of the error.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>I know of no peer-reviewed publication that argues against e3=e1/(1-e2). Please list all those such cites that you like.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">A thorough investigation of engineering sources finds no support for rating performance on the basis of any of the energy being subtracted from the denominator, the input energy. There is no need
to publish a peer-reviewed article attacking junk science. The WBT ‘thermal efficiency metric’ It is self-eviscerating.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you want to report the production of energy, you report the energy produced divided by energy input.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you wish to report energy in char, you report energy in char divided by energy input.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you wish to report the energy in the pot, you report energy in the pot divided by energy input.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you wish to report the energy in the pot and energy in the char you report
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(Energy in the pot + Energy in the char) divided by the energy input.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="5" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you wish to report the energy lost, the energy in the pot and the energy in the char, you report<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(Energy lost + energy in the pot + energy in the char) divided by the energy input = 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The denominator is always the same.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you wish to report the fraction of energy input that reached the pot and was not contained in the residual fuel, you could use the WBT formula, but that is neither the efficiency nor does it represent
the fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If you take the energy lost and divide it by the energy in the pot, you get a number, but it is as useless a number for assessing fuel consumption as the WBT formula.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br>
You can also take the mass of char and divide by Tuesday to provide another useless metric of no value for assessing fuel consumption. There are many useless things one can do with numbers.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ronal W. Larson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 22-Sep-17 20:54<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Paul Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Philip Lloyd <plloyd@mweb.co.za><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">List, Paul, Philip:<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>See inserts below.<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>Newcomers will need to also see my message (I’ll call it “A”) of yesterday in which this issue of e3=e1/(1-e2) was a big part. (same thread title)<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 Sep 22, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">Philip,</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">Good. Let's move this forward.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">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.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL: Paul, thanks. I wonder if Philip will like the one I gave: e3’ = e1+ e2 (which was 2/3 in my “A” example). Both e1 and e2 have “1” (the input energy) in their denominator.</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span style="background:white">Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the equation that is to be provided. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency is not the same as fuel efficiency.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL: I do not know how to interpret this. Can you or Crispin express this statement in equation terms? In my example of e1 = e2 = 1/3 (and inefficiency (“ei”) necessarily = 1/3),
I am willing to use either “energy efficiency” or “fuel efficiency” for the terms e3 or e3’. Or maybe you are using e3 and e3’ for this difference? If so, which is which?</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>More below, responding somewhat similarly to Philip.<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span style="background:white">Paul</span><br style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com/">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">On 9/22/2017 12:28 PM,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is wrong, spurious, faulty, unscientific.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL1: I believe the equation (to repeat: e3=e1/(1-e2) ) is not wrong, not spurious, not faulty and is scientific. It has been used for centuries and I know of no other (repeat NO
OTHER) way to get a correct statement of efficiencies in a char-making stove when talking of cooking and comparing stoves.</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>My main support is that it is currently used in the WBT in the ISO TC 2785 process. To have that status, this equation was recently endorsed by numerous experts from numerous
countries (with South Africa in a small minority, I think).</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 know of no peer-reviewed publication that argues against e3=e1/(1-e2). Please list all those such cites that you like.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the fuel input.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL2: Disagree. This is fine if e2 is zero. I contend strongly that the term e2 is “useful”.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Char is not an input but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency calculation.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>[RWL3 Yes and No. I have said that “above the line” is fine - in one overall sense. (giving e3’ = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3). But e3’ is not a valid equation if the interest is cooking alone.
And we need a cooking only computation - if we are to compare char-making stoves to non-char-making stoves. Or do you think one should never make that comparison?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a product ( positive) and not a negative feed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL4; Disagree. When looking at the cooking only situation (needed to compare rockets to TLUDs), the charcoal (e2) is indeed a “negative feed”.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Please stop trying to use bad science to justify an untenable position.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>RWL5: I await your citations on comparing rockets and TLUDS. I reject the apparent South African official position that charcoal should ALWAYS be ignored. If e3 = e1 only is your
position - please tell us how South Africa will be reporting its tests on TLUDS (with their sizable e2).</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">It gives the whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterate try to justify their abuses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL: Hmm. Interesting way to conduct a dialog on something that has recently been officially approved by the ISO - I believe by a sizable majority.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Ron</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Philip Lloyd<br>
<br>
Sent from my Huawei Mobile<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br>
From: "Ronal W. Larson"<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
To: Discussion of biomass<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>,Andrew Heggie<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
CC:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to address the term “50”<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15 words.<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> Also dealt with but we need corroboration from analysis of TLUD char.<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG stoves do not<br>
>> have lower emissions than any solid fuel stove.<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>> [RWL10: Agree totally.<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
>><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><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>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> Andrew<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Stoves mailing list<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a 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 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 href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre style="background:white">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white">Stoves mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><a 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 style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span style="background:white">_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span style="background:white">Stoves mailing list</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address</span><br>
</span><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</span></a><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page</span><br>
</span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</span></a><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:</span><br>
</span><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</span></a><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>