<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="">Steven et al:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Can you check your nomenclature below?. Wiki assures me that HHV>LHV. Typical numbers there are 21.2 and 17 MJ/kg. I see 18 MJ/kg a lot for rough estimates - as it works nicely with other numbers. Of course 30 MJ/kg for charcoal for similar rough calculations.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 18, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Law, Steven (MOECC) <<a href="mailto:Steven.Law@ontario.ca" class="">Steven.Law@ontario.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Hello all,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I have finally completed a proper study of reporting efficiency using LHV and HHV. It was much more complicated than I thought it would be, and now I know why this is such a mess!<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Just remember that HHV is always less than LHV, and anything above 100% is WRONG and cannot possibly conserve energy or mass and is therefore unscientific.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">When an LHV efficiency from Europe is 90% (which is actually a reasonable number), the HHV efficiency is a maximum of 84% or usually less, depending on the moisture content of the wood fuel and is more typically 75-80%. This is important, HHV efficiency is extremely dependent on fuel moisture whereas LHV is less so, but only for non-condensing boilers.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Again, this is for non-condensing combustion devices, because when you throw in high efficiency condensing heat recovery all the numbers get screwy and LHV no longer applies. Everything has to be re-done for condensing boilers and only HHV can be used, I will repeat LHV cannot be used for anything where condensation of the flue gas occurs in the heat recovery device!<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I think I have a proper engineering calculation procedure mapped out to deal with all of the above issues and I will begin to roll this out a little bit at a time since I need to review it again before sending anything out. It is a scientific method that is based on conservation of mass and energy and I hope that this new calculation procedure will help to solve some current problems in the industry.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Best regards, Steven<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><b class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Norbert Senf [<a href="mailto:norbert.senf@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:norbert.senf@gmail.com</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>December 14, 2017 10:36 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Ronal W. Larson<br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Discussion of biomass;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:mhatech@yahoogroups.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mhatech@yahoogroups.com</a>; Law, Steven (MOECC); Sauve, Terrence (OMAFRA); John Ackerly<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Stoves] Top lit updraft combustors<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Ronal W. Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<b class="">(snip)</b><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><b class="">So all that to say I like your “beneficial to all” approach. What do you recommend as a first “harmonizing" fix we could start talking about?</b><o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Very good question.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Comparing even commercial heating stoves on emissions and efficiency between North America and Europe is very difficult:<o:p class=""></o:p></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">- Europe uses LHV, whereas we use HHV to define efficiency, roughly a 9% difference. Quite common to see European numbers of "90% efficient" thrown around loosely and even advertised here. Using HHV, you can have efficiency higher than 100%.<o:p class=""></o:p></p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">- PM comparisons are next to impossible between different test methods. Until recently, Europe has been regulating on CO, which is much easier to measure. Their PM measurements are normally done with a hot filter, and therefore capture only "dust" and not condensible organic semi-volatiles.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">- There is no escape here (North America) from having to compare with the defacto standard of "The EPA Number".<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">This is expressed as grams per hour of PM, defined as the number you get when you follow the procedures in EPA Method 28 and EPA Method 5G ( a prescribed fueling and firing cycle and a dilution tunnel PM method that is impossible to conduct in the field). When you get into the weeds of "what is the repeatability of your laboratory method", the answer is "we don't know", and the next best answer is "plus or minus 40%, based on limited data".<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">For a heat storing appliance such as a masonry heater, PM in g/h (emissions rate) makes no sense, since it is zero for 90% of the heating cycle. Countries like Australia and New Zealand, with a similar dilution tunnel PM method, use g/kg (emissions factor). European PM numbers are often reported in mg/m3 of normalized exhaust gas.<o:p class=""></o:p></p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The Condar has been very interesting for us. As a very tiny industry of enthusiasts, it is an affordable way to get our own reasonably equivalent data. We now have direct comparison data running it against EPA Method 5G on a regular stove, pellet stoves and masonry heaters at several EPA-accredited labs as well as a national laboratory.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">If I were looking at a TLUD, for example, I'd want to know "what is the emission number, expresses as grams of PM per kilogram of fuel, using a dilution method ?". This is usually the number of interest for public health authorities, because it is thought to be the best way to model particulate emissions into the atmosphere. So perhaps this might serve as a proposal for a harmonizing measure?<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Norbert Senf<br class="">Masonry Stove Builders<br class="">25 Brouse Road, RR 5<br class="">Shawville Québec J0X 2Y0<br class="">819.647.5092<br class=""><a href="http://www.heatkit.com/" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">www.heatkit.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>