<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=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Andrew <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Your response was rational, in the sense of seeking an explanation for why the stove would use about the same amount of fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The WBT (which was the method used for evaluation) is not rational. It
<b>doesn’t</b> report that the mass of fuel used per session was the same, it said the number
<b>spit out by the WBT</b> was about the same. That is a very different thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The WBT reports the dry fuel mass equivalent of energy released, so for any amount of energy gained by the pot, the energy released by the fire would almost always be the same. The actual mass of
fuel fed is almost independent of the quantum energy released, especially if you compare while making or while not making char. It is obviously misleading to compare fuel performance using a WBT calculation.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The fact that this reality has not sunk into a great fraction of stove builders is the greatest failure of the modern stove promotion cabal of testers.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Suppose you compare two hot plates to see which is “more efficient”. One has 1 plate which goes on and off, and the other has 2 plates. When turned on, both get hot at the same time. Put one
pot on each appliance and turn them on. The two pots get heated at an identical rate, and reach boiling point at the same time.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The WBT assess how much energy was available to each pot. It does not assess how much total energy went into the cord from the wall plug. The WBT reports that both stoves “used” the same amount
of power and therefore they have the same efficiency. Any sensible person will point out that the total energy going into the cord is different by a factor of 2, the two plate stove being half as efficient as the single plate stove when cooking one pot. The
WBT doesn’t notice that – that’s how dumb it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As long as these legacy organisations keep using the discredited WBT to report stove “performance”, we will continue to see these gross misrepresentations polluting the literature. It is plain and
obvious to any observer that a stove burning all the fuel requires less biomass than an identical stove that produces char as a remnant. The WBT was crafted (in ignorance) to hide this fact and its purveyors will not admit it, because doing so will invalidate
thousands of performance tests, CDM projects and even portions of the ISO’s work to date.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Imagine if Sam Baldwin had corrected the conceptual errors of the 1985 VITA test instead of adding two new errors. Imagine if Colorado State had removed all the errors instead of adding two more
in its “EPTP” protocol! Imagine if the EPA had the confidence and competence to push for wholesale correction of performance tests instead of pushing the already discredited WTB at the IWA meeting in 2012, with its meaningless low power metrics and erroneous
fuel consumption numbers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We are still suffering from the refusal of Berkeley to publicly abandon the WBT and admit that all previous ratings are defective, and should be ignored. Every WBT-based rating of performance made
at the CCA website should be deleted because they are meaningless to the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If char making stove advocates do not understand what they are rating, they are dooming their projects and initiatives to failure because of their incompetent misrepresentation, egged on by the usual
suspects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Who is a “usual suspect”? Anyone who tells you that a stove that burns 2 pounds of wood to accomplish something that another stove needs 1 pound of wood to do has, “about the same fuel consumption”
because it produced ½ a pound of char. Tell that to the forest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Sincerely<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Stoves <stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>ajheggie@gmail.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 02, 2021 6:46<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] [Biochar] Embers from Three Stone as Biochar - Who has done this?<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 05:21, Ron Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<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>
<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 Mar 31, 2021, at 8:37 PM, K McLean <<a href="mailto:kmclean56@gmail.com" target="_blank">kmclean56@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Using tongs to remove embers, women can make 300-800g of char daily. Because they've reported that firewood usage does not increase,
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F10aUtzXfo_y9AlmCBr5zMo-tLZbQ8qq48%2Fview%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca65e8dd895a147540dc208d8f5d6a3f2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637529649511739554%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BwoHlAO4RhPaJ2Ohq4r5DXTApkHVnUN8I6dnBOGvPyA%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
SNV did a simplified WBT</a> and, counterintuitively, SNV found only an insignificant increase in fuel usage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>[RWL3: I’ve. reviewed this SNV work (in Viet Nam) and have asked for the raw data as well as the finished reports. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>But I can believe the results. - because the embers that are being collected (by SNV and by women being paid for the char) had already mostly given up its hydrogen. The fallen ember necessarily came from near the bottom of the fuel
bed - where it was not contributing much to water boiling.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The experience that there is little change in total wood used, even though there is char removed is interesting. May it be because the cooking fire is "LOSSY" and depends on flames reaching the pot whereas the embers would just sit glowing
at the bottom of the fire, so their radiant and convected heat never reaches the pot or because the cooking is finished and the embers would otherwise just burn away to nothing..<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>