[Stoves] About releasing of emissions data (with ref to earlier messages)

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

An interesting message. I think your list can be extended easily.

>1.  They do not have any data (a valid response for those without access to
testing facilities, but not valid for the corporations that claim low
emissions).

Most testing does not provide useful information or is expressed in a manner
that does not allow a reasonable decision to be made about how the stove
will perform in daily life. This issue will not go away until the world of
stoves decides to join the real world of thermodynamic engineering and how
industry talks about fuel and emissions. We are viewed as bizarre. 

An example of bizarre is found in the 1916 Edition of the McGraw-Hill
Engineering Handbook. It lists the size of wires used for telegraphy
according to the mass that needs to be held up on the poles as well as the
electrical resistance of the wire which is a function of both its diameter
and material. Wires were not listed as 1.5mm or 8 gauge. There were
described with a number giving their 'ohms per ton-mile', not their
diameter. Ohms per ton-mile is a useful metric to the highly specialised
world of telegraphy, but pretty useless for talking to motor winders or
commercial electricians. 

>2.  The data are not as good as reported by others for other stoves.

But using what metrics? There is no agreement, and what is on offer tells us
little. Some report 'ohms' and some report 'ton-miles'. 

>3.  The data are great but  they do not want to show others that great
data.  How could that be?  perhaps because of
>       a.  modesty or

It is VERY important to private companies to know how they fare (compared
with others) when planning to bring a product to market. Very few stove
makers have ever brought a product to market so it may seem unnecessarily
secret but rest assured, there are very good reasons to keep the actual
performance of a stove quiet to allow the marketing people to plan properly.
And be assured whatever number are published, they will be challenged by
someone making some other arcane measurement.

>       b.  not wanting those with higher emissions to feel that their
stoves are inferior, or

Ditto.

>       c.  they doubt that their tests could be replicated by others in the
future, or

A real fear given the chaos that prevails in the stove world.

>       d.  concern or fear that releasing their data might somehow help
some other stove effort, or

Definitely. It is quite possible that 'low emissions' is not the primary
mission of a stove producer. Those obsessed with emissions might talk about
nothing else, but business success means meeting performance standards while
selling a viable product people want to buy. Most customers care very little
about emissions - surprisingly. They care about all sorts of other things in
different markets. 

>       e.  Corporate policy (based on a or b or c or d above???)
>       f.  some other reasons.

It might be that it is just NOYB (none of your business). If you want to
know the emissions, but a product and test it. This is often done.

>4.  Perhaps the entities are unaware that others such as readers of the
Stoves Listserve are honestly interested in knowing the emissions data of
the stoves that have fame and market share.   

Testing centres often conduct such product reviews. Information obtained by
ProBEC for such surveys, for example, is available.

>I admit that I am proding for those entities to release some emissions data
for the Oorja, Philips stove, Enviro-fit, for the different versions of the
Lucia stoves, and any other serious candidate stoves.  If those data are
released already, I apologize for proding.  Just show us where the data are.

If the emissions and performance were available, what would you do with the
information? Are you looking for performance targets? Delaying your access
to the information (because you don't test it yourself) might help them sell
more stoves in the meantime while you develop something cleaner.

>When I want to purchase an automobile, I check the data on expected miles
per gallon (or km per liter).  It should be the same for stoves.

Hmm.....well it has proven to be very difficult to do that in the US of A
even for space heating wood stoves. There is an interesting study by the
State Of Mass. looking into the patchwork of regulations and test methods
used in the USA. It is a sobering read. Universally rating a stove is much
more difficult than rating a car.

>Until I see some data, I cannot give full appreciation to those stoves.

It seems to me you would have to produce your own, or cooperate with a group
of friends.

Today I tested a highly touted coal stove that had some strange
characteristics. The touting was (naturally) by the inventor. It was not
particularly efficient, not particularly powerful, not particularly low in
CO but was pretty good (-90%) on particulate emissions. It was not very good
at burning the fuel when there was not much left either and doesn't cook
well. But what do you want to bet that if it is promoted over other superior
stoves, it would not dominate the market in 3 years? 

Test data is absolutely essential and it has to give meaningful reports so
valid comparisons can be made. Projects that need the information are
usually willing to pay for it because they can specify how the test should
be done, thus being relevant to their region or applications.

Regards
Crispin