<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Ron,<br>
<br>
Responses to several topics that you raised.<br>
<br>
1. You wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><b class="">D is positive. It is what is
left after subtracting A (the desired stove energy) and from B
(the input fuel energy). The WBT reports A, B, and C. As you
point out, it is easier to think B = 1, and A, C, D are then
percentages.</b></blockquote>
<br>
<b class="">B (the input fuel energy)</b><b class=""> (think B = 1,
and A, C, D are then percentages.)</b><br>
<b class="">A (the desired stove energy) </b><span class="">( What
do you mean by "desired"? Is it not the actual energy that went
into the cooking pot?)</span><b class=""><br>
</b><b class="">C (the charcoal energy) </b><b class=""></b><span
class="">this is removed when the charcoal is collected after the
cooking event..</span><b class=""><br>
</b><b class="">D = inefficiency </b><span class=""> (the heat that
is lost or "not used")</span><b class=""><br>
<br>
and B = A+C+D <br>
</b><br>
<b class=""><b class="">as can be deduced from viewing what's going
on in a triangular diagram. </b><br>
</b><br>
2. Triangular graph. You wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><b class="">If someone sends me A, B, and C
data - I'll send back the graphical version.</b></blockquote>
No data for B. In a triangular graph, this would be "unity" of
ONE (the sum total of 3 variables that MUST add up to 100%) or
better stated as 100%.<br>
<br>
In a triangular graph (which is equilateral with the base at the
bottom), there are 3 corners (apex), one for 100% of each of the 3
contributing variables that each "have one of the three sides" for
showing values from 0% to 100%. See the copied graph below, and
put C (for the energy of the charcoal) along the base edge, with
100% charcoal at the lower right hand apex. I suggest that A (for
the "good energy" that is into the cooking activity) be on the
right-hand slope with its 100% of A being at the top apex. That
puts D on the left slope, with the lines being sloping downward.
In the diagram, the dark lines show an example of A = 35%, C = 50%,
and D = 15% (Just an example of how to read the graph, not
representing any stove). Of course, B = 100%.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left">
<span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr" tabindex="-1"
style="outline: none">Triangular Graphs</span>
</h3>
<p><font size="3" face="arial, sans-serif">Triangular graphs are
graphs with three axis
instead of two, taking the form of an equilateral
triangle. The important features are that each
axis is divided into 100, representing
percentage. From each axis lines are drawn at
an angle of 60 degrees to carry the values
across the graph. The data used must be in the
form of three components. </font></p>
<font size="3" face="arial, sans-serif"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse;line-height:13px">They are
useful when identifying change over time, as a position
changes. </span></font>
<div><font size="3" face="arial, sans-serif"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse;line-height:13px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<font size="3" face="arial, sans-serif"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse;line-height:13px">
<div style="display:block;text-align:left"><a
href="https://sites.google.com/site/skillsa229/triangular-graphs/bp03-04i.gif?attredirects=0"><img
src="https://sites.google.com/site/skillsa229/_/rsrc/1327160164931/triangular-graphs/bp03-04i.gif"
border="0"></a></div>
</span></font></blockquote>
<br>
In this diagram, we will place C (for the charcoal energy) on the
base line that increases from left to right. A on the right slope
thtat increased upward, and D on the left slope that increases
downward.<br>
<br>
Ron, with this arrangement, you or anyone can put in actual or
hypothetical data sets that represent types of stoves. I bellieve
that the results will be of interest to all of us. I look forward
to further discussion.<br>
<br>
**************************<br>
Note by Paul: I do not know what e3 is or is not. Ron
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">And Crispin
continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a
statement of what would be expected if char (variable C)
had NOT been produced. </b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I read that and still do not know what e3 is or is not. Does
it matter?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<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 7/3/2018 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:61C86FB5-E1BF-47C2-AC3C-9805587CD2B5@comcast.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="">Paul and ccs</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Shanks for the positive response. See few inserts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jul 3, 2018, at 6:31 AM, Paul Anderson <<a
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Ron,<br
class="">
<br class="">
Thanks for that well-stated reply. I hope that many
readers will digest what you have presented.<br class="">
<br class="">
My comments are restriced to only the discussion of
equations and their meanings. (How we arrive at 50
million char-making stoves is a vastely dirrerent topic.)<br
class="">
<br class="">
The explanation by equations might be better understood or
at least illustrated with a few sets of number based on
actual stove typess (see reference to the triangular graph
mentioned in your message.). <br class="">
<br class="">
You wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">To repeat,
the equation under discussion is used without apology
throughout the new ISO 19867-1 document. <br
class="">
</b></blockquote>
Maybe give a few specific references / page numbers. But
I for one will not be checking that.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">I believe I
have stated that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in
part because it is identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D
= inefficiency and B = A+C+D - as can be deduced from
viewing what's going on in a triangular diagram. <br
class="">
</b></blockquote>
Maybe it is time to show such a triangular diagram (in
which any position in the triangle shows the three numbers
that total 100%). What are the three components? You
have 4 letteres A B C D. and what does each one mean
in the real world? I am trying to understand the concept
of D as "inefficiency", which is being added to A, but D
is a negative number .<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL1: D is positive. It is what is left after
subtracting A (the desired stove energy) and C (the charcoal
energy) from B (the input fuel energy). The WBT reports A,
B, and C. As you point out, it is easier to think B = 1,
and A, C, D are then percentages.</b></div>
<div><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>D
is perhaps the most important number of them all, and is
rarely reported. All stovers are trying to make this number
small.</b></div>
<div><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
spent many weeks trying to get something meaningful out of
ordinary X, Y, Z orthogonal charts - and finally stumbled on
the triangular plot. Googling for triangular plots via
Excel gives a few choices (I haven't found one exactly
right). If someone sends me A, B, and C data - I'll send
back the graphical version.</b></div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> I am
guessing that the produced charcoal (Just just happens to
be convieniently called "C") is zero for sstoves that do
not produce char and something like 20% if measured as
weight or 30% if measured as energy. Is this making
sense? Please explain further.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">RWL2: Yes that makes sense. But I hear 40% for
energy is a possibility.</b></div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">And Crispin
continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a
statement of what would be expected if char (variable
C) had NOT been produced. </b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Further
elaboration on that would be helpful.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL3. I don't know more to say. Sorry. I'll
look for someone else's description of the result of applying
this equation. If not this one for entering a value in the
Tiers, then what is the right equation?</b></div>
<div><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div><b class="">Ron</b></div>
<div><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div><b class="">Ron<br class="">
</b>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" 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" moz-do-not-send="true">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/" moz-do-not-send="true">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/3/2018 1:13 AM, Ronal W.
Larson wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D4DEDCA5-AE92-4ABA-BB0E-B6EE27DD3180@comcast.net"
class=""> Nikhil, cc list and Crispin
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">See inserts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil
Desai <<a
href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <br class="">
<br class="">
A billion dollar question — what difference
does all this make and to whom? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL1: I respond assuming by "all this"
that you mean my 10 responses to Crispin.
Summarizing those 10 is relatively easy - the
only (repeat </b><u class=""><b class="">only)</b></u><b
class=""> sentence below (the second sentence I
asked under RWL1) - to which Crispin did </b><u
style="font-weight: bold;" class="">not</u><b
class=""> later reply (61 minutes after yours
- i.e. at 9:16 PM Mountain time): </b><b class=""> I
said: "<i class="">Please explain what equation
you would give for this answer for a stove that
has intentionally made char."</i></b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><i class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></i></b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Since
he chose not to give us an answer on the 28th,
this will give him (and I hope you and others)
another shot at an approach alternative to that in
wide and continuing use. I expect no answer from
Crispin, since he apparently disputes the validity
of even trying. To repeat, the equation under
discussion is used without apology throughout the
new ISO 19867-1 document. I believe I have stated
that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in part
because it is identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D =
inefficiency and B = A+C+D - as can be deduced
from viewing what's going on in a triangular
diagram. And Crispin continues to mis-state what
e3 is. It is NOT the efficiency for the test
providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of what
would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT
been produced. I ask Crispin again to supply a
better statement for what the efficiency would be
if char had not been produced. Ot alternatively,
what equation would he use to compare char-making
stoves with all others?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The
above was only to set the stage for my (and I hope
to hear from others) answers to your important
questions: "what differences and who cares". Tor
me, the difference is largely in whether we are
able to assign tiers. If you (anyone) don't think
it important (or wise or permissible) to compare a
char-making stove to a non-char-making stove, you
(anyone) will reject tiers. It is much easier to
reject tiers if you can discredit the equation
(the only equation) that allows comparisons. The
concept of tiers was endorsed (I think)
unanimously in Lima some 5-6 years ago. And this
question was known fully at that time. I think
tiers are critical to stove improvement.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
contend that even if there were no such thing as
tiers, it would still be helpful to have this
denominator equation - as the equation contains
the terms showing exactly where the energy is
distributed. If you don't measure the weight, you
won't know the energy in the char - and you can
have no idea of the true inefficiencies.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Lastly
- "to whom": This equation and the tier system
it allows is obviously important information to
both buyers and sellers. Char-making started off
(early 1990's) being interesting to me as a way of
helping remove pressure on forests, where
traditional char-making is often now illegal -
because traditional char-making is so wasteful
(and harmful to the environment in many ways).
Next came a period of selling char-making stoves
on health grounds - still the primary interest of
many stove activists. Next came a period of
realizing that stoves that make char are also time
savers. And of course, my present emphasis on the
carbon-negativity aspects of char-making stoves.
I contend all of these positive attributes that
follow from the simple equation A/(B-C) = A/(A+D)
should be important to something approaching 100%
of the global population. Who should not want a
stove that accomplishes all those ends?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(Aside
- I learned this week of a char-making stove
design that has MUCH larger turn-down ratio. In a
month or so, we should all hear more.)</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">And when will the cooks
know?<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL2: Very shortly after we have
international agreement on a tax/fee/subsidy
available to technologies that are carbon
negative. When do you think that might occur? I
am guessing maybe five years. It will occur
sooner wherever the benefits of biochar become
better known (an example is what we have heard
from Julian Winter in Bangladesh).</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>But
for sure there are cooks already who know - as in
the Inyenyeri study with the Mimi Moto forced
draft stove (see </b><a
href="https://www.inyenyeri.com/development"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.inyenyeri.com/development</a> and <a
href="http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html</a>),
<b class="">and some recent reports on stove
acceptance by Paul Anderson </b>(see <a
href="http://www.drtlud.com/" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.drtlud.com/</a>)<b
class="">. The Inyenyeri cooks only knew part of
the advantages of the stove - emphasizing
cleanliness and time savings, but not money
earnings (because the needed initial (not
perpetual) subsidy or biochar advantage is not yet
available..</b></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">I am reminded of a
classmate who sought to prove the instability
of capitalist system by showing the third
derivative of the aggregate production
function was of the wrong sign. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL3: I have no idea why this is in
here. I talked many decades ago with Dennis
Meadows and another author of "Limits to
Growth". Believing the "Limits" story, I
believe your classmate was off in the order of
the derivative. Since I believe there is zero
possibility of continuing ever onwards to an
infinitely large GNP, without knowing anything
about your classmate's project - I might guess
the right answer is the first or second
derivative, depending on what is being varied.
The point of this answer is of course
to emphasize the importance of char-making
stoves to getting on to a sustainable path.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>What
were you driving at with this story?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Assuming you are
correct, when will the first 50 million clean
biomass stoves be exclusively used for two
years and where? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">[RWL4: I consider only the
char-making stoves to be clean enough to worry
about, so I answer only for char-makers, and
accept your further stipulations of 50 Million
and 2 years. This of course depends on my
answer to your 2nd question on cooks
understanding en masse the benefits of making
(not using) charcoal. The current growth path
for biochar is approximately doubling every two
years. With a subsidy near $35/tonne CO2
(already seen in some times and places), then
this will approximately allow a 6 month payback
if the char can be sold for $200/ton of char (20
cents per kilo of char).</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
am not going to worry about your word
"exclusively" - but rather that the char-maker
is the primary stove - because it is the
cheapest, cleanest, most time-saving stove and I
see no reason for a rural low-income user (maybe
2 billion in that category) to use another. So
my guess is about 10 doublings (ten years) to
grow from about 50 thousand users to 50 million.
We might be at 50,000 such stoves already, but
will be shortly. It took PV about 50 years to
reach cost parity (in the 1970's the cost was
$100/Watt); char-making stoves are already much
closer to cost parity. </b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>To
check a bit - your 50 million stove number,
multiplied by about 4 users per stoves and
dividing by about 2 billion potential users is
getting up to about 10% acceptance. I
don't expect to stop at 10% when the user can
make money (and save time, health bills,
forests, etc). </b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b
class="">Again, thanks for allowing me to make
my sales pitch for both char-making stoves and
biochar - based here on the importance of the
equation (and WBT and tier structure) I have
assumed you are asking about.</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<b class="">Ron</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Nikhil<br class="">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""
clear="all">
<div class="">
<div class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr"
class="">
<div class=""><font
class=""
face="georgia,
serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br
class="">
Nikhil Desai</font></div>
<div class=""><span
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small" class="">(US +1) 202
568 5831</span><font
class=""
face="georgia,
serif"><br
class="">
<i class="">Skype:
nikhildesai888</i><br
class="">
</font><br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 28,
2018 at 3:10 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span
dir="ltr" class=""><<a
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"
class="">List and Crispin:
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>This
is a partial response, due to press
of other matters.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Please
see inserts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 27, 2018,
at 10:07 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott <<a
href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span
class="">Dear Ronal
and All</span><span
class="" lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Just on
comment:</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">>>“I
hope this standard is
the last nail in the WBT
coffin.”</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span
class="m_-7494411321189096442apple-tab-span">> <span
class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL: I hope
you are willing to
change your mind on
"coffin", per the
above. What I do hope
will soon be dead is
the Chinese stove
standard which says to
treat intentionally-produced char the same as unburned fuel or ash. I
think the same for the
South African
standard. I can
think of no reasonable
rationale for such a
position.<br class="">
<br class="">
</b></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">I think
you may be
misunderstanding
something about how
calculations are made in
the ISO test method. One
of the most important
metrics for stove
performance is assessing
the amount of fuel fed
into the stove in order
to accomplish a task
such as baking 1000
cookies or boiling 200
ears of corn.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The
metric is “Fuel Fed”
(please see the list of
definitions).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>RWL1:
I suggest you misunderstand
my misunderstandings. Please
explain what equation you
would give for this answer for
a stove that has intentionally
made char. I think you are
suggesting here in this answer
(and below) that there is
nothing wrong with the present
Chinese approach to pay zero
attention to intentionally
produced char. True?</b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""> </span></div>
<span class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">The mass of fuel
fed was carefully written
to capture the quantity of
fuel needed to accomplish
some cooking task. Whether
the stove produces char or
not is a secondary point.
IT is easy to report the
amount of char produced,
and there are metrics for
doing so. It is the amount
of char produced per kg or
per dry kg of fuel fed.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL2: You leave out
that it is not at all easy to
provide the energy (not the
weight) of that char. Both are
of interest.</b><span class=""><br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Importantly,
the cheating that has
been taking place using
the WBT is not brought
to an end. If I look for
the amount of fuel fed
into the stove per
replication of some
task, be it the standard
one or a relevant one, I
will find the amount of
fuel needed to do so. If
there is a secondary
product such as
condensate, char, heat
that can be used for a
secondary purpose such
as space heating, or
electricity, these are
all recorded in an
appropriate manner.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL3: Is now and was
in the WBT 4.2.3 and earlier
versions. Cites on cheating
have not been produced to my
knowledge.</b><span class=""><br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The
cheat that was with us
for so long, claiming as
the WBT1.x, 2.x, 3.x and
4.x that a stove did not
consume fuel because it
emerged from the cooking
session in the form of
char, is gone,
thankfully. Please refer
again to the
definitions.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b
class="">[RWL4: This is
erroneous. Please give the
(exact) language anywhere that
suggests the "did not consume"
. Please don't ask others to
go find something they don't
believe exists.</b></div>
<span class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">That
‘char deducted’ formula
that you refer to is an
energy calculation that
relates to the fraction
of energy in the fuel
fed that was released
(theoretically) during
cooking. It no longer
refers to the mass of
fuel fed, as it once
did.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL5: This paragraph
makes no sense. There is no
theoretical release in the
equation being used to give a
number to allow comparing
char-making stoves with those
that don't. All the numbers
going into that computation are
given and all have been
in theist WBTs I know about. In
the Chinese official test
procedure, the char is wished
away.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"
class=""> </span>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">This is
a major advance in
testing methods. Only
the stove testing groups
used the erroneous
‘char-deducted’ formula.
When searching the
literature for some
example elsewhere in
industry, not a single
one could be found
because the claim was
fundamentally
misrepresentative. That
has now been cleared up.<span
class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b
class="">[RWL6: Again a
paragraph that makes no
sense. Please give exact
language from anywhere on what
you are talking about. I
think it is the "denominator
equation" - which still exists
in the latest ISO version - I
think adopted with essentially
a unanimous vote of many
countries (not individuals).</b></div>
<span class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><br
class="">
</b></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The
remaining mentions of
the WBT are for PR
purposes only. Not a
single voice supporting
the use of a “WBT-like”
test was raised in the
ISO process. In fact it
was put to a vote in
exactly that form, in
those words: “WBT-like”.
No one wanted it. Now,
it is only for the
organisations who
supported the WBT for so
long to be given enough
space for them to
quietly drop it while
pretending that it was a
valid method all along.
To do otherwise would be
to admit they were
cheating donors. We do
not have to extract that
pound of flesh.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b
class="">[RWL7: This is a
long way from what others have
told me occurred. So I will
break here to hear from others
(who I hope can also join in).
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>It
would help this list to have
your explanation of how you
know what to be true.</b></div>
<span class="">
<div class=""><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"
class=""> </span></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The ISO
Standard is not anyone’s
standard – it only has
meaning when a country
adopts it, or adapts it.
Any country
contemplating adopting
this document as a
national standard will
have to consider how it
will be implemented, and
whether all of it or
some of it will apply.
When it comes to things
like fuel efficiency,
which is important in
some regions, it is
likely the national
standards body will
apply its collective
mind to what portions of
this massive document
they will use. As anyone
reading it will quickly
see, it is unnecessarily
complex, and requires
numerous pieces of
equipment that are very
expensive if one is to
have a reasonable level
of confidence in the
result. Because a
national standard
provides a warranty of
performance, it is
pointless to have as a
test method something
that doesn’t provide it.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL8: I claim none of
this paragraph is true. I have
skimmed it; Crispin says he has
not. A country that chooses to
ignore a work that has taken
such effort will lose a lot of
credibility in science circles.
This took many years to balance
complexity with completeness.</b><span
class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">People
seeking lower cost and
more accurate
alternatives may
consider adapting
Indian IS–13152,
China’s NB/T 43008 –
2012, or the CSI test
method which has been
used internationally
in some form since
2009.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL9: I repeat my
claim that Crispin has kindly
repeated above: </b><b
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"
class=""><i class=""> "I can
think of no reasonable
rationale for such a
position." </i> </b><b
class="">To report results on a
stove designed to make char
without measuring the char,
because the national standard
says so, is unbelievable. That
couldn't happen if offending
countries adopt the new ISO
procedure.</b><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The WBT
4.2.3 contained, when it
does, some 75 systematic
errors as well as its
much-discussed
conceptual errors. We do
not know yet how many
are contained in the
ISO-19867-1 because it
has not been reviewed
conceptually or
systematically. Because
the test method is
novel, (untested)
problems with its
implementation will have
to be resolved at the
national adoption level,
if it turns out to be
acceptable ahead of
other options.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL8: I have asked
for this "75" list several times
and do so again. The ISO
document that is being discussed
<u class="">has</u>
undergone agonizing review - by
top experts.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><b
class=""><br class="">
</b>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The
problems created by the
WBT remain, however, as
witnessed by the recent
release of the second
edition of the
Micro-gasifier Handbook
which makes barley any
mention of testing and
includes multiple
references to
‘performance’ based on
the obviously erroneous
fuel consumption claims
of the WBT.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL9: How about a
specific cite and example
quotes? I claim it quite
likely that there is zero error
in the consumption claims.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"
class=""> </span>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">For
anyone who is new to
this topic I recommend
reading the CREEC Lab
test of the Quad II
stove (featured in that
Handbook) which shows
that the fuel fed per
replication of the test
is 1.3 kg (as received)
and claims a dry wood
fuel consumption of 636
g. I will read it again,
but I think the handbook
does not address this
issue squarely and it
must in the next
edition. Char production
is a secondary benefit
and can negatively
affect the fuel
consumption rate.
Advocates should not shy
away from discussing it.
A good example of how to
handle secondary
benefits is heating
stoves, which are
assessed on the basis of
the cooking provided,
the heat provided, and
the combination. Where
char is an additional
secondary benefit, it
should also be listed in
the form of carbon mass,
if it is for
sequestering, energy, if
it is for fuel, or total
surface per gram if it
is for “activated” uses.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b
class="">[RWL10: Crispin here
totally misses everything
possible about char-making
stoves. More on this if he
wishes and gives cites so we
don't waste more time on
something agreed upon in the new
ISO test procedures. </b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Measuring
char-making capabilities of a
cook stove that excels in
emissions and other ways is
probably a real problem if one
is into coal-consuming heating
stoves.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br
class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class="">Ron</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><span class="">
<div
class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">Regards</div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">Crispin</div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">ISO TC-285
WG1, WG2, WG3, WG4.</div>
<div style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"
class="">P-member SABS
TC-1043<u class=""> </u></div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<!--'"--><br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" 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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</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=""
moz-do-not-send="true">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="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>