[Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories

[Otto Formo]

Dear Frank,
I very much agree with you.
Tests according to protocol should be run by certified and indepemdent labs and you should compare - apples to apples, not like it is to day.
The independent aspect is the most important one, either you produce stoves and let others do the testing or you do the testing as an independent reserach center and let others produce the stoves.
Internal testing should of cource continue, but to be "approved" by the GACC, tests should be done by independent research centres world wide.
That should be the one and only way forward.

Iam about to contact SINTEF, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thermal Energy Division in Norway about these issues, right now.
Otto

> From: Frank Shields [frank at compostlab.com]
> Sent: 2011-01-20 19:04:44 MET
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org]
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> 
> Tom, Crispin and Stovers,
> 
> But first we need to get organized. Common testing protocol run by 
> certified labs -so apples to apples. This takes an organization and 
> money to put it all together. Otherwise we get nowhere as I see it.
> Having a list of all the labs working on stoves is a -great- start. 
> Getting the labs to send SOP's to a central organization that wants to 
> take on organization the QC program may be a second. Publish the 
> collection of SOP's for distribution for comment could be a third. Then 
> picking ones for all labs to use a fourth. Organizing a protocol to 
> update, add to, remove test methods a fifth. Something like that.
> 
> Otherwise Crispins work helps him develop his stoves and Aprovecho 
> methods help them better their stoves - but Crispins data cannot be 
> compared to the data Aprovecho produces and the stoves they both produce 
> cannot be compared to each other until the same protocol is used and an 
> independent certified lab does the testing.
> 
> Regards
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Miles wrote:
> 
> > Crispin,
> >
> > Good examples and great ideas.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > *From:* stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org 
> > [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of 
> > *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:01 PM
> > *To:* 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> >
> > Dear Tom
> >
> > We need a bigger testing footprint. Many many stove are promoted 
> > without people have a real clue as to their fuel saving or emissions 
> > profile and the reason is primarily no access to any testing or the 
> > testing was not relevant, not even to mention its accuracy.
> >
> >>The reason for asking is that one way to stimulate stove improvement 
> > might be enable producers to access and get support from labs.
> >
> > I believe the progress made by John Davies, on his own, was in good 
> > measure because real time testing could show him what was and was not 
> > better, sifting through his hunches about how things should work. 
> > Maybe he can support that. It certainly helped me. I was stuck in 
> > ?visual land? until I was handed a small combustion analyser.
> >
> >>I have seen situations where a design gets "stuck" without being 
> > further developed due to lack of technical support.
> >
> > That support is the sort of thing you get at the SEET lab: bring it I, 
> > make it perform, we will let you know what we think would make it 
> > better, then demonstrate it to convince you. Emissions reductions by a 
> > factor of 10 are routine with this method.
> >
> >>Organizations involved in production and dissemination often don't 
> > have the appropriate resources.
> >
> > It is a good use of Global Alliance funds because perhaps 100 new 
> > products are needed.
> >
> >>What would labs need funding support for? Equipment? Personnel? 
> > Conducting tests, design and development? Or all of these?
> >
> > All those and post-grads. I have been trying to get 5 physics students 
> > into the SEET lab for more than a year with no success. No one will 
> > look ahead 5 years to the time when we need a new coterie of people 
> > skilled at testing and familiar with the issues of standard setting 
> > and certification (implying legislation and inspection).
> >
> > Design and Development has to be backed up by access to real time 
> > emissions and thermal efficiency testing. The task-based approach 
> > often used till now hides too many thing and can waste a great deal of 
> > effort.
> >
> > Take a look at the attached charts. There is only one small difference 
> > between these two tests (same stove) something detected in a real time 
> > examination of the emissions.
> >
> > 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
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>