<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">List, Paul and Philip:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Phil is quite justified in introducing new nomenclature, but I think others may find mine easier, so I do a translation below. The names will make no difference in the conclusions below.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:37 AM, <a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" class="">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">Thanks. It is easy and logical and sound:<br class="">Cook = Ucook/Rfuel</div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Could be my e1 in the WBT, but see “Hot”; in the WBT there is no cooking, only water heating<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Echar= Uchar/Rfuel </div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Same as my e2; As an example, we can both say this value is 1/3; a common number for the WBT<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Espace = Uspace/Rfuel<br class=""></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This is zero throughout the WBT, which is the topic under discussion</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Hot = Uhot/Rfuel<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Same as my e1; In my example, e1 = 1/3, also not far off reality. This is the 5 liters of H2O in a pot.<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">E = (Ucook+U char+Uspace + Uhot)/Rfuel<br class=""></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I am using e3’ for this; Philip will obtain e3’ = 1/3 +1/3 = 2/3; using my numbers appropriate to the WBT; I call the remainder ei - the inefficiency. (1/3 here)</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Where E is efficiency, <br class=""></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have named efficiency as both e3 and e3’, where e3=e1/(1-e2), and e3’=e1+e2; respectively 1/2 and 2/3 in my hypothetical</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">U is useful energy<br class=""></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have named this e1+e2, but dropping Philip’s Ucook and Uspace - which are not measured in the WBT. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>** This line is a big difference between us; I do not assign Uchar = e2 (= 1/3) to be useful in a cooking test. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>** My guess is that Philip will backtrack on this point re the WBT under discussion</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">R is raw fuel energy<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have assumed everything normalized to R =1 energy unit (could be MJ or BTU, etc)<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">cook is for cooking <br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I’ve dropped; not in the WBT<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">char is for char production<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I’m using “2” as in e2<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">space is for space heating<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Dropped as not being in the WBT<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">hot is for hot water production<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I’m using “1” as in e1<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="">So you have a single equation that can give an loverall efficiency for stoves providing different services, or can give the efficiency for each of those services. The moment you try anything logical with less input energy because you are producing an energy service, intuition proves a poor guide.<br class=""></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>So Philip, in the reduced form for the WBT, is saying he prefers e3’ (the 2/3 value). I am preferring the smaller number e3, where e3 = e1/(1-e2) =(1/3)/(1-1/3) = 1/2. Since this dialog (about ISO and WG2) is all about Tiers, I think Philip will find his perspective will not be appreciated by his cohorts from South Africa; Biochar will be winning by even more than it already is. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Remember the WBT is simulating cooking - in no way is much of the discussion about char-making; this is why e3 is there, not e3’. But if Philip wants to assert that the right efficiency number for the WBT (and Tiers) in his above (my e3’), no one interested in biochar will mind.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I see no need to add to Paul Anderson’s note below. I think (not sure) that Paul is supportive of the present WG2 methodology with its (1-e2) in the denominator - giving my e3 (1/2) over Philip’s preferred e3’ (2/3).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Ron</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Philip Lloyd<br class="">Sent from my Huawei Mobile<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br class=""><br class="">-------- Original Message --------<br class="">Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br class="">From: Paul Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu class=""><br class="">To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org class=""><br class="">CC: <br class=""><br class=""><br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Philip,<br class="">
<br class="">
Good. Let's move this forward.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the
equation that is to be provided. <br class="">
<br class="">
Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency
is not the same as fuel efficiency.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul<br class="">
<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 class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:f0349d03-6465-41a1-813b-08705de4cb04@BL2NAM02FT022.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
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 class="">
Philip Lloyd<br class="">
<br class="">
Sent from my Huawei Mobile
<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br class="">
<br class="">
-------- Original Message --------<br class="">
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br class="">
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson@comcast.net class=""><br class="">
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org class="">,Andrew
Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com class=""><br class="">
CC: <br class="">
<br class="">
<br type="attribution" class="">
<blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew
and list:<br class="">
<br class="">
I think we are in agreement on all but your last
response, where I and you say:<br class="">
<br class="">
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a
different viewpoint<br class="">
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
RWL: Afraid I can’t agree. <br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
His continued fighting against the equation e3 = e1/
(1-e2) is my major concern.<br class="">
Y t.v.<br class="">
Ron<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com class="">
wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson<br class="">
> <rongretlarson@comcast.net class=""> wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew wrote<br class="">
>> There might be a slight case for saying a<br class="">
>> gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow
(particularly lower N2)<br class="">
>> because the primary combustion doesn't go
to completion so less<br class="">
>> primary air is used, the corollary may be
that the secondary flame<br class="">
>> also can be burned with less excess air
because the offgas has a<br class="">
>> higher calorific value but not enough to
make up for using 50% less<br class="">
>> energy..<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to
address the term “50”<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I clarified this in my reply to Paul,
obviously it is subject to<br class="">
> experimental measurements but from a desk study
given that the char is<br class="">
> reacted at 600C AND 20% of the original biomass
dry weight remains as<br class="">
> char then it looks like the energy remaining in
the char is closer to<br class="">
> 1/3 than 1/2 of the original energy in the dry
wood.<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15
words.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> Partially dealt with above but also what I was
meaning was that the<br class="">
> offgas from a TLUD, with just sufficient
primary are to maintain the<br class="">
> descending pyrolysis front, will be largely the
pyrolysis offgas plus<br class="">
> the small amount of gases from the combustion
that provides the heat<br class="">
> to drive the process. So it will be little
diluted by CO2 and nitrogen<br class="">
> than from a traditional fire which supplies
enough under grate<br class="">
> (primary) air to completely burn out the char.
Hence the offgas from<br class="">
> TLUD is of a higher calorific value and as such
needs less excess air<br class="">
> to maintain a clean flame. On a larger scale
with lower heat losses in<br class="">
> the primary region this may not be the case.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> Disagree with Crispin’s statement that a
case with 25% char retention<br class="">
>> involves “50% of the original energy” (as
did Paul Anderson).<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Also dealt with but we need corroboration from
analysis of TLUD char.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Agree with most by Andrew - but think the
last sentence needs amplification.<br class="">
>> That is - lower temperature char can be a
better economic choice, even if<br class="">
>> “fixed carbon retention” is less. This is
better discussed on the biochar<br class="">
>> list. pH value is one criterion that could
point toward lower T’s.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> ...and of course lower fuel input cost would
make it more economic<br class="">
> even if the carbon credit paid to the producer
were based solely on<br class="">
> the fixed carbon.<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG
stoves do not<br class="">
>> have lower emissions than any solid fuel
stove.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> It seems unlikely to me that simple stoves
could have lower emissions<br class="">
> than a LPG flame but Crispin did say as near as
makes no difference<br class="">
> and good enough works for me.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew<br class="">
>> The trouble is I have a<br class="">
>> parochial view and not a good worldview of
what types of persons<br class="">
>> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they
also predominantly growers?<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I
disagree with Andrew calling<br class="">
>> himself “parochial” - when he supports (as
do I) the ethics of “a subsidy<br class="">
>> funded by the developed world”.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> I was referring more to my lack of experience
of stoves in the real<br class="">
> developing world compared with yourself,
Crispin, Nikhil and many<br class="">
> others.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> So my contention is that apart from the
carbon credit there is a value<br class="">
>> to the land in not having to export a cash
crop.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL10: Agree totally.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> It still means the grower needs to recognise
that exporting a<br class="">
> conventional cash crop is removing mineral
wealth from the holding, in<br class="">
> many soils with high initial fertility this may
not be significant. So<br class="">
> whilst the cash that the grower/stove user
might receive will be<br class="">
> linked to the carbon credit paid for using the
resultant char as a<br class="">
> soil amendment he might also value not having
to use the land for a<br class="">
> cash crop and possibly growing stove fuel.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin
has a different viewpoint<br class="">
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Andrew<br class="">
> <br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> Stoves mailing list<br class="">
> <br class="">
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<br class="">
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use
the web page<br class="">
>
<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 class="">
> <br class="">
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br class="">
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br class="">
<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 class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</rongretlarson@comcast.net></aj.heggie@gmail.com></blockquote>
</aj.heggie@gmail.com></stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></rongretlarson@comcast.net></div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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 class="">
</div>
</blockquote></stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></psanders@ilstu.edu></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>