[Terrapreta] Charcoal Specification

[ch braun]

Hello,

BiocharDB was born!

1. ONLINE DATABASE ACCESS
http://bionecho.org/terrapreta/

I have set up a (very) minimal online interface, with an underlying SQL
database.
Basically, there should be at the end 4 parts:

a. Search trials in the DB:
For now I just implemented the search by trial ID, but of course at the end
one should be able to ask for any kind of request with (incomplete)
keywords,  multi-fields and constraints search and so on.
For now, you can already try it out with trialID=1, 2  or 3.

b. Add trials in the DB:
Here I also put a minimal form to get an idea. According to what we
discussed, the addition in the DB will be indirect and only succeed after
the reviewing process. So the data submitted to the form is sent by mail to
the person in charge of that.
This also should already work, you can try it out!

c. Documentation:
Aka the wonderful world of biochar...

d. Internals (not added yet):
Access to this part would require authentication of the user and could, for
instance, be a good communication place for the reviewers,

So before I go on, I need feedbacks! Please tell me if it more or less
corresponds to what you were expected, what is obviously missing...any
comment may be useful!

2. SPECIFICATION FORMAT
http://bionecho.org/terrapreta/charcoalspec.xml
I converted the text version of the charcoal specification in XML, so that
it's easier to read and modify. I will not maintain the txt version any
longer.

3. SPECIFICATION CONTENT
After taking into account Ron's comment, there are following remaining open
questions:
- heating rate  *[RWL:  How about total production time - and maybe
reference to some data base of "standard" methods.]
*- same question for the remaining parameters in A.Biochar properties ->
Physical properties -> Charcoal physical properties! Btw, are there here
superfluous parameters?  *[RWL:  Yup - Maybe we could cut this down to 4-5
different types - more or less based on the highest temperature reached,
with space for special notification.  For instance, some manufacturers
(Eprida) supply charcoal with added fertilizer.]
*- should we express the productivity / economical value in general? How ?
*[RWL:  I believe this is our main unknown.  I like delta$/hectare.  Those
doing small tests in pots can be encouraged to scale up using
plants/hectare.   Also we need a row for "Productivity multiplier"
(dimensionless)]*
- Ron what do you mean by "spreading width"? Is it different from the size
of the field where the experiment takes place?  *[RWL:  We need Tom Miles to
comment here.  He has reported on a technique now used for putting
fertilizer only where it will do the most good.  I recall numbers like a 6"
(15 cm) width swath located maybe 4" (10 cm) down.  Tom?]*

Sincerely yours,
Christelle


On 9/6/07, Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Christelle  -  See few more notes below.   You're fast!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* ch braun <brauncch at gmail.com>
> *To:* Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Cc:* Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> ; Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>;
> Terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; brauncch at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:13 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal Specification
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks a lot for your useful comments!
> So here we are:
>
> 1. CHARCOAL SPECS
>
> http://bionecho.org/terrapreta/charcoalspec.txt
> I have updated it, taking into account Ron's comments. I also started to
> add the unities of measurement, but for some parameters I'm not sure which
> is the best one:
> - heating rate  *[RWL:  How about total production time - and maybe
> reference to some data base of "standard" methods.]*
> - charcoal yield  *[RWL:  Percent, %]*
> - thinning    *[RWL:  If this was for seeds in a pot, you could use plants
> per pot, initial/final]*
> - calorific value  -  *[RWL:  If this is charcoal, the standard is MJ/kg
> (about 30)]*
> - for the compositions in general, C, H content...  *[RWL:  Percent, %]*
> - same question for H2O, O2 sorption...  *[RWL:  Maybe %??]*
> - same question for the remaining parameters in A.Biochar properties ->
> Physical properties -> Charcoal physical properties! Btw, are there here
> superfluous parameters?  *[RWL:  Yup - Maybe we could cut this down to 4-5
> different types - more or less based on the highest temperature reached,
> with space for special notification.  For instance, some manufacturers
> (Eprida) supply charcoal with added fertilizer.]*
> - a measurement reference is also sometimes missing I guess, as soon as a
> mass is provided ( e.g. "initial charcoal dry mass (mg)"...relative to
> what?)   *[RWL:  Maybe could be per liter.  For large areas, we want
> kg/sqm or tonnes/hectare]*
> - should we express the productivity / economical value in general? How ?
> *[RWL:  I believe this is our main unknown.  I like delta$/hectare.  Those
> doing small tests in pots can be encouraged to scale up using
> plants/hectare.   Also we need a row for "Productivity multiplier"
> (dimensionless)]*
> - Ron what do you mean by "spreading width"? Is it different from the size
> of the field where the experiment takes place?  *[RWL:  We need Tom Miles
> to comment here.  He has reported on a technique now used for putting
> fertilizer only where it will do the most good.  I recall numbers like a 6"
> (15 cm) width swath located maybe 4" (10 cm) down.  Tom?]*
>
> 2. REVIEWING PROCESS    *[RWL:  I haven't reviewed this closely, but
> suggest we need the names of reviewers also.  ]*
>
> I like the idea of a 2-steps reviewing. My proposition for the process:
>
> 0. Online form completion. The submission has the status "UNCHECKED".
> 1. Initial automatic syntax parsing (check if all mandatory fields have
> been completed, if the values are in the permitted ranges...). If it's ok,
> submission receives the status "WELLFORMED".
> 2. Submission sent to XV members of the group "VERIFIERS".
> 3. As soon as YV verifiers give their approval, the submission status
> becomes "ACCEPTABLE". It is then sent to XR members of the group
> "REVIEWERS".
> 4. As soon as YR reviewers give their approval, the submission status
> becomes "ACCEPTED".
>
> Following questions have now to be answered:
>
> 1. Who are the VERIFIERS ?
> 2. Who are the REVIEWERS ?
> 3. Values of XV, YV, XR, YR ?
> 4. How are the XR members selected ? (random?)
> 5. At which stage should the submission appear in the DB ? (i.e. with
> which status?) The current status should then clearly appear online.
> 6. Which restrictions for the automatic parsing ? So what is required for
> UNCHECKED->WELLFORMED ?
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Christelle
>
>   *[RWL:  At first, we will have to work with volunteers and randomness.
> Mostly, I'll bet we will have people wanting to use the data base for
> TP-promotion purposes - with the best reviews on the data at the top or
> bottom of the results spectrum.   *
> **
> *    Christelle - thanks for your efforts here.*
> *    *
> *RWL]*
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070910/910c2c3f/attachment.html