<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Listies,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After quite some time of only occaisionally reading posts, I happened to read the following, which illustrates one of the reasons I have stopped reading every post some time ago. Paul's questions perturb me. I admittedly am not a retired professor or an engineer, but over the course of official and inofficial studies there are some things I notice which always come up as what seems to me to be wasting a lot of time when dealing with these issues.</div>
<div>Paul's nr.:</div>
<div>>1. poses a category error. The way that physical science is done is at issue here and Paul doesn't seem to get the nature of experiments. You define the parameters of the test, postulate what might influence the results, explain how you want to prove what it actually is that you trying to prove, etc. Defining the parameters for the purpose of verifying the reasons postulated for the future measurement received requires defining constants and variables. The constant in this test is the stove. The variable is the fuel and/or things like ambient temp., air pressure, humidity, etc. When you fail in posing a question to distinguish constants and variables you are liable to make a categorical error, as Paul has done in this case.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>2. Sorry, Paul, with this question you sound like a politician trying to argue for new gun control laws but ignoring law presently on the books. You have made char left over after a burn is completed into a kind of holy grail. But seeking it wasn't the point of the study in question.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The subpoints Crispin addresses refer back to the underlying category error posed in >1. All I can do is shake my head. Paul, why after such a long time on the list do you insist on this kind of stuff?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>>3. Since back in High School chem lab, but underlined poignantly when I was assisting a P.E. here in Germany mixing chemicals for boat/ship coatings and glues I understand that chemical processes are complicated and that stuff reacts differently according to the chemical make-up of the reacting AND the environmental variables ruling when the reactions take place.The stove isn't a variable here, so talking about stuff that's variable seems to be defining the scope of the discussion also based on a categorical error. Why insist on changing the frame of reference back to an argument about something which isn't at discussion. The focus of the list suffers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Crispin, I commend you for your patience. What motivated my jump in to the discussion was a chance "easter egg"(expect separate personal mail) discovered while driving back to the Autobahn after an unscheduled overnight on a trip to Denmark.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>regards to all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ron</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag, 19. August 2018 um 23:46 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott@outlook.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Stoves] Effects of biomass pellet composition on the thermal and emissions performances of a TLUD cooking stove</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
span.PlainTextChar {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
-->
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Paul</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I can try to answer:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>1. The physical characteristics of the stove are highly important because TLUD stoves can be made in so many ways. Therefore, the name of that specific stove is important if we are to be able to replicate or improve or comment about the stove.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;">It is not a report about the stove. It is about fuels in a "constant stove".</span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>2. Does this TLUD stove make char? If it is a TLUD stove, it DOES make char. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">All biomass stoves :create char". Some consume it, some consume some if it, some consume only a little. As we have heard before, the moisture content changes the equation.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>But the user might choose to consume the char inside the stove by continuing to cook after the pyrolytic front reaches the bottom of the batch of fuel.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I think you are assuming something there: not all TLUD stove "wait" until the whole batch is pyrolysed. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>If that is done, that needs to be clearly indicated in the report. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Why? It is a report on fuel properties, but combustion systems.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>And such cooking with char is unlikely to be at the typical high power used for Chinese cooking, so is something else different? </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Well, we can't know that by guessing. Char burning might be very powerful - and the heat transfer efficiency might be higher too. Who knows?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>Unanswered questions mean that a more complete report would have helped.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;">The report delivers the result of the investigation. It is not about the stove. All you questions are about the stove, right? </span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>3. ... energy density >21 MJ/kg... is indeed unusual. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I find it odd that you guys think so. Would you be surprised to know that there are biomass fuels with 22 MJ/kg? Cashew nut shells - good TLUD fuel - are <a href="https://energypedia.info/wiki/Cashew_Nut_Shells_as_Fuel" target="_blank">25-28</a> MJ/kg.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>Expecting about 16 MJ/kg, means 5/16 = 30% increase. Such a difference should have received a sentence or two of comment. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I don’t agree. It is the result of the bomb calorimeter test. It is not noteworthy. It is on the higher end of the biomass range. What should the student do, report a number different from that which he obtained? We are free to speculate about <i>why</i> it is so high, but not about the result. We can have our own ideas, but not our own facts.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>I am glad that the research was done and that the report was published. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So am I. The reason (which is not obvious) is that it gave me a good opportunity to emphasize that one cannot ‘test a fuel for emissions” which is a misconception so widespread that it has infected the hallowed halls of the UNEP. WHO, Berkeley, and numerous other noteworthy institutions which ought to know better. Fuels have inherent emissions, but accidental emissions are reported as being inherent. That is where all this “solid fuels are dirty, we have to switch away from them as a mark of progress” (see MDG 7).</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>If Crispin knows the researcher(s) or their host institution, perhaps we might get some clarification.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;">All that is at the top of the paper.</span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;">Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color: black;">Crispin</span></p>
</div>
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page <a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: <a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>