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

[psanders at ilstu.edu]

Dear Crispin,

As usual, you make many very interesting points.

In general, although much is said about the need for low emissions,  
most people (even the health-focused ones) pay very little attention  
to the accomplishment of very low emissions.  That statement is not a  
justification for concealing emissions data.  It is just a bit of  
reality.

The other reality is that money and power (influence, reputation,  
brand name, etc that have been earned in some fashion) dominate in  
most cases.  Period.  Full stop.  I am not convinced that such  
dominance has the best results when trying to assist the truly needy  
and the ones who acquire the product stoves that are available.

Lessons for some of us:  (altered quotation)  It is whether you win or  
lose, not how you play the game.  (within limits, of course.)

Enough for now.  We have stoves to build and test and enter into the races.

Paul

Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail