<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 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</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=FR link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear Ron,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Despite the best efforts of Xavier and Crispin to
discredit the almost approved WG2 methodology<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I never said anything about the WG2 methodology, simply because
I have no idea of what is happening at the WG2 nor the TC 285.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;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><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De :</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Stoves
[mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>De la part de</b> Ronal W.
Larson<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> dimanche 28 janvier 2018 00:00<br>
<b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>List cc 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>Being
mentioned 3 times, but charcoal and Tiers not being mentioned once, I respond
below - with hopes that Crispin can understand the way charcoal numbers should
be used in computing a Tier rating - which he (to repeat) he never specifically
addresses (only alludes to).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><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 Jan 27, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a
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>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Show me a cook who worries about the amount of energy released
from a solid fuel when cooking, and not the amount of fuel. Just one. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL1:
I can agree that there are probably only a few such cooks. But none
is probably also the number of real simple solid fuel cookstove users
on this list. A better question for both cooks and list members is:
“Show me a cook or list member who favors<u> inefficient</u> stoves.
Just one”. The Tier system can be viewed as one about
inefficiencies.</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
start this with “inefficient” because it is the main point in the rest of
this response. We focus on this list on e1 = (dimensionless) efficiency
of heat transfer in the WBT and e2 = efficiency of making charcoal (roughly 1.7
times as energy important as weight). We tend to ignore what is the
most important if we want to increase either/both e1 or e2, since
inefficiency, i = 1- e1- e2. Now the question that Crispin has trouble
with is how should knowing e1 and e2 (and we know both with remarkable
precision through any of the WBT’s) give us the e3 needed by the Tier system?.
I say remarkable, because I would be happy with 2 or
3% accuracy and repeatability - and the testers do better than that.
The e3 answer for Tier purposes is below. Crispin has given no
equations for the alternative e3 numbers he cites below - only (inaccurate) assumptions of
what I would say.<br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>After finding one, maybe it is Ron, ask if they want the actual
energy released, or a vague, misrepresentative number. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL2:
Obviously rhetorical - who can want “<i>a vague, misrepresentative
number”? </i>But NO - I would not be happy with only the “<i>actual energy
released”. </i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Despite the best efforts of Xavier and Crispin to
discredit the almost approved WG2 methodology, it seems virtually impossible
for there to not be a continuation (probably improved, maybe harder) of both an
approved WBT and some type of Tier structure. What I want is more
than “<i>actual energy released”. </i>I want the energy that could
have been released if e2 (= percent energy in the char) were zero. That
is what is the existing protocol calls for and that I am trying to protect and
justify below. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><br>
<br>
</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The amazing things about the WBT are the incompetence with which
it was created and later, defended, and the effort put into not correcting it,
but preserving it as a monument to…what exactly?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL3:
None of that sentence is worth responding to.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Ron doesn’t really want to preserve the WBT, he wants to rate
stoves that have a fuel efficiency of 20% to be reported to be 40%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL4:
It is useless for me (the culprit) to ask for a cite for this claim
on what “<i>he wants</i>”. This is basically a
statement that a Crispin doesn’t understand how to use e2. The
largest possible number I have ever seen for e2 is 0.4, but lets call it 0.5.
In my experience, e2 is around .3. If you use either of the equations
I have been repeating this week - (and is in the main WBT protocols and
always has been) then e3 (the predicted efficiency if the stove could
produce no char) would be e3 = e1/(1-e2) Eq. 1</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>and e3 = 1/(1+i/e1)
Eq. 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>To
use the second form, we need the inefficiency, </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>i
= 1 - e1 - e2 Eq.3 </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>and for Crispin’s claim of what I believe: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>i
=1-.2-.5 = .3 Eq.4 (for
the “impossible” case) and </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>i
= 1-.2-.3 = .5 Eq. 5 (for “my” version of
Crispin’s case).</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>So
if e2 is .5 (impossibly high) we would get for the Tier number, using Eq 4</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b> e3
= 0.2/(1-.5) = .4 Eq. 6 (using Eq 1),
and </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>e3
= 1/(1+.3/.2) = 1/2.5 = .4. Eq. 7 (using
Eq. 2)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>So we see that Crispin attributes to me a
40% efficiency (without explaining how he got there) that
is solely based on (the incorrect statement of) me claiming
50% efficiency for char making - which I never have said and I have above
said is not possible - even if e1 were zero.</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>For
completeness, I could/would not have stated that Crispin doesn’t understand the
equation to be used for Tiers if he had used my preferred example inefficiency
number of I = 0.5. Then instead of e3 = 0.4, he should have stated that I
would expect (not “<i>want</i>”) a Tier rating of:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>e3 =
1/(1+i/e1) = 1/(1+.5/.2) = 1/3.5 = .29 Eq, 8
(a LONG way from his claim that I have been promoting 0.4)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>That fuel efficiency metric will be used to calculate the
reduction in the harvesting of unsustainably harvested forests by improved
stoves accessing CDM funding. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL5:
Another sentence that is so illogical as to warrant another “no comment”
as in [RWL3. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>However
I have to say that the figure e3 now used in the Tiers is much more logical
than this statement about his proposed “<i>fuel efficiency metric”
(which is NOT an e3)</i>. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>We
should be thinking both sustainably and unsustainably harvested
forests. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>I
see no reason to suddenly bring “<i>CDM funding"</i> into
this discussion</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>A stove that reduces fuel cutting by 1/2, Ron wants to be rated
as reducing it by 3/4. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL6:
Hmm. How did Crispin come up with 3/4 (even if one can figure out
what he means by that BIG reduction - meaning what is left must be 1-3/4-=
1/4). Before trying to figure that out, I need to remind the list that
when I first introduced a char-making stove design in November, 1995 (on
a predecessor of this list) - there was no talk at all of biochar, only
char . My intent solely was to save forests from the roughly 15%
efficiency of making char (often illegally) in earth kilns.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>So
my first interpretation of this strange sentence was that “it” meant “fuel
cutting” - but that has already been defined as “1/2”.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>So
starting with the first clause - which says some unidentified stove <i>“reduces
fuel cutting by 1/2”</i> - so maybe he means e1’ (the value after
using the new stove) is (e1)/2. (This still a guess, since Crispin
feels no need for symbols.)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>Then
since the second clause refers to RWL - and I have been (incorrectly)
advertised as believing in a doubling of e3 over e1 - I guess now that Crispin
is saying here that </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>3/4
= 1 - (1/2)*(1/2). Eq. 9 - </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b> I
don’ t know what set of symbols to give - so will ask Crispin to tell us what
might refer to my symbols e1, e2, e3, and i )</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> This is indeed an identity. But I don’t want
to be identified as recommending either “1/2” term - nor the equation that
produces the “3/4” either.</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>[RWL7:<span
class=apple-tab-span> </span>Let me try to generate an RWL number
equivalent to Crispin’s “3/4”. A pretty reasonable example is
where </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>e1
= e2 = i = 1/3, Eq 10 (assumption</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>then </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>e3
= 1/2 Eq.11 (Readers - please check
my e3, using both above two equations Eq. 1 and Eq. 2). </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> Note that this (overall) Tier efficiency e3 (when
the stove produces no char) was decreased to 1/2 from the e1 +e2
value of 2/3. My e3 of 1/2 is not the claimed doubling that Crispin
claims (“claims” because he shows us no equations - only results).</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>So
the WG2 e3 value of 1/2 (if we ignore everything about char-making) is larger
by 1/6 than the e1 value of 1/3. So the absolute largest % increase
that I could be charged with (still ignoring the forest benefit of making
char in a stove) is in the ratio (1/6)/(1/2)= 1/3 or (1/6)/(1/3) = 1/2 -
depending on what you want use in the denominator. A non
char-making stove requires 1/3 less cutting if one throws away the char (which
Crispin apparently feels is likely). So Crispin’s 3/4 is obtained only
with hand waving and illogical and inaccurate assumptions </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>[RWL
8: We should also discuss why e3 should be this half-way value between
e1=1/3 and the e1+e2 value of 2/3. Why should the stove without
char-making not have an efficiency of the full 2/3? (Besides the
fact that NO small stove ever gets an e1 that high.) My belief is
that it is in the way hydrogen is consumed in the char-making stove. The
pyrolysis process is such that the produced char has a much smaller %
H2 than any form of “raw” biomass. (And users of the char in
soil want it that way.) So the pyrolysis process is providential - we
get what both e1 and e2 need to be. Stated another way, e2 has a higher
energy content (about 30 MJ/kg) than the input biomass (about 18 MJ/kg). </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>[RWL9:
It might help to say a bit more using weights, assuming 1 kg of input
with an initial energy of 18 MJ. If e2 is still 1/3 , then the char must
have 6 MJ. An assumed energy density of 30 MJ/kg, means the char must
weigh 6/30 = .2 kg. The energy density of the gases going into e1
and i must then be (18-6)/.8 = 15 MJ/kg. Everything balances as we move
to find the critical e3 (needed for the Tier computation). The
making of char gave up hydrogen to get e1 as high as it was (1/3). When
we assume no (char-made) e2 (which was 1/3), then e3 can only jump (by 1/6)
from 1/3 to 1/2. There was little H2 impact to give up as e2 went to zero
in finding e3.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>(Note
- the actual energy densities in real WG2 reporting are different from these
assumed values. But not much different - and the existing WBT instructions are
good on how these are to be obtained (unlike some of the
competing stove testing approaches.)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Do you, Andrew, think that making such a misrepresentation of
consumption would be mischievous, or fair, to the funder of the avoidance
unsustainable deforestation?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><b>[RWL10:
A final rhetorical sentence also not needing comment, once one
agrees there has been zero misrepresentation. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> <span class=apple-tab-span> </span> But I
write the above for others - not Crispin, whose opinion I expect to remain
unchanged by any of the above (I hope of course I am wrong - but I have tried
to say most of this before).</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b> </b></span><b>I’ll
not similarly ask Andrew - but do wonder how he will answer Crispin - with its
mischaracterization of my values and methodology? </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Apologies for length here - obviously, I am trying to
influence discussions at ETHOS.</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>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Regards <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On 26 January 2018 at 10:51, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a
href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear Anh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Other than reporting the energy in the char and it's mass, what
else should be reported?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The only thing that is needed is how much energy was
released to do the task, establishing it is a bit troublesome as each species
is different and moisture contents vary. With other fuels it's simple, we can
weigh a LPG cylinder before and after use and deduct one from the other to
establish the fuel used.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I have never been asked how much energy a stove uses out of the
fuel it consumes during the replication of some task. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>So the energy use isn't much relevant to the cook?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>People always ask how much fuel a stove needs to 'do
something'.Misrepresenting the fuel needed from the available resource to
complete a task is mischievous. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<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><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>We should not introduce mischief to our performance
evaluations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Stop being mischievous then ;-) <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>_______________________________________________<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>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Garanti sans virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>