[Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance in the Field?

Fri Nov 23 11:15:38 CST 2012

Dear Tom

You are inspiring me on this lazy long weekend.

I looked at the topics for ETHOS and saw "Update on ISO process".

There is no ISO process - it has not been started yet. What I am afraid of
is that someone will declare that 'the ISO process documents are ready' and
all we need to do is hold a meeting and rubber stamp them. The idea that an
ISO standard is going to be worked out ahead of time by commenting on a
website is mistaken. The document will be negotiated by country
representatives just like all over ISO standards.  We won't be having a
repeat of the situation where the IWA content was not really discussed
beforehand, and the time available was so short in the meeting, it is not a
representation of the assembled knowledge of the stove community. It was the
same-old unrepentant WBT and a new safety protocol from Nate Johnson (who
did a good job).

Prior to that we had a rubber stamping session in Lima where 15 of the >500
people in attendance agreed to the old WBT outfitted with a new frock as a
default method of determining stove performance. It doesn't determine stove
performance so why would anyone make it a default method??

The stove community was always underfunded and now it is getting masses of
funding interest from multiple quarters. This requires a shift in political
thinking. If the statistical, physical and social knowledge available in the
non-stove community is not systematically applied to the methods used, there
are going to be some very rude awakenings. The stove community has always
existed in a netherworld of para-science and enthusiasm. That was never a
problem (or was a small one) when there was no money involved. But rest
assured, there will be industry-wide consequences when the prevailing lack
of due diligence, the back-room deals and the para-science of 'stoves' sees
the bright light of Quality Control Reports.

Just what does 'finalising the WBT' mean? Has it ever been rated for
precision as an experimental method? Where is that report? What is its fuel
consumption metric accuracy? It does not measure fuel consumption. Could
this explain why stoves that 'test well' perform so badly and people don't
use them? I think so. My idea of finalising it is to buy it a headstone. How
many more thousands of hours should be invested in it?

While we are at it, let's review the CCT 2.0 which does not measure fuel
consumption either. It is widely touted as a final check on stove
performance in the field. It only yields two metrics but neither of them is
the consumption of fuel, for heaven's sake.

Tom, we are going to need two weekends.

Regards

Crispin

Mark,

You have listed a number of standards and protocol topics. Now that GACC
exists have we made any gains on the science side? Where is the data?  We
should be generating good field data by now. I don't want to just hear
reports about what people have decided in political committees that nobody
seems to be able to attend or vote in.  

I would like to see a critical review of the testing protocols and methods
with regard to the key metrics and emissions. For example, the protocols to
date have made assumptions about heating values of fuels and residues ash
and charcoal that I have always felt were just placeholders until someone
with larger research budgets could validate them. Determining the amount of
energy left in the ash or charcoal is a good example. I often get asked what
value to use for the remaining ash/charcoal. I haven't seen a test where the
remaining charcoal/ash has been directly tested for ash content and heating
value. 

Testing the benchmarks. Do the benchmarks that were derived several years
ago make sense now that we have improved tools for measuring stove
performance or do we get the same numbers because we're using the same
tools? Do the benchmarks tell us anything about stove performance in the
field? Do stoves preform in the field in the same relative way they are
shown to perform in the lab or are some stoves much better than others (or
much worse) when they are used in the field? Are the stoves designed to the
test (e.g. WBT) or to the use in the field? Do some stoves perform best when
they are tested in the lab and fail in the field? Or, are we even testing
for this?

Field applications. Are our tools and metrics of any use for improving stove
performance in actual use? If so then how are projects in developing
countries using these tools to improve their fuel use and health? How do
local, nation, or regional stove projects use these tools to improve their
stoves, or do they just ignore them?

QA/QC. When a program buys container loads of stoves how do we know that
they perform within the expectations created by the test results? Do any of
the manufactured stove suppliers test the quality and performance of their
stoves on a regular basis? Is there any monitoring?

How has testing been used for different fuels? I was inspired this week by a
photo from Mexican which a construction worker was using an LPG burner in an
eCocina stove (Stove Team International) because it substantially reduced
his LG use. Can we compare fuel consumption for different fuels? How good
are our fuel consumption metrics? 

Health. We still do not have proven direct correlation between stove
emissions and heath. Most of the data seems to be recycled. Are there new
health studies? Has GACC and the many supporting organizations funded any of
the fundamental health studies that every year Jay Smith tells us are
lacking? 

These are some of the questions that I would like to see addressed at ETHOS.

Looking forward to another productive ETHOS. 

Thanks

Tom  

T R Miles Technical Consultants, Inc.

tmiles at trmiles.com

www.trmiles.com

www.stove.bioenergylists.org

From: ethos-bounces at vrac.iastate.edu [mailto:ethos-bounces at vrac.iastate.edu]
On Behalf Of Bryden, Kenneth [M E]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:05 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; ETHOS - Listserve
Subject: [Ethos] ETHOS 2013

All, 

It's that time of year again! We're starting to get the activities together
together for the ETHOS conference. The conference will be January 25 - 27,
2013 in Seattle. Proposed discussion topics include

- Update on the Global Alliance and their activities

- Standardizing Reporting on IWA Indicators

- Stove Performance Inventory, Sharing Public Data, and Establishing Common
Data Formats

- Update on ISO Process

- Updates on Protocol Developments (including possibly charcoal, plancha,
batch-fed, durability, finalizing WBT from public comment period)

Let us know what else you would like to talk about. A lot is happening and
I'm sure it will be as exciting as ever. I'd appreciate having your ideas on
topics and panels by November 15.

Abstracts for papers and talks are due January 1.

For more details, to register, and to submit your abstract the conference
web site is http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/conference.php.

Please send your ideas directly to Dean and I.

Best regards

Mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20121123/ed18646d/attachment.html>