[Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.

Tue Apr 30 09:12:00 CDT 2013

Frank, Ron and all,

The TYPES of stoves are important, and the key characteristics need to 
be stated because there are now so many designs of Rocket stoves and 
TLUD stoves and Charcoal stoves.   But the actual stove name is only 
important when it is a specific product or it is with detailed 
drawings/plans so that others could reproduce it.

What is not needed are names on the experimental units.

It is important that we report some of the UNdesirable results, such as 
the negative impact when air flows are excessive or too restricted.   
Showing max and min and median-or-mean results of several tests is 
useful, but does not fully help us get closer to the best results.

We will be using the testing equipment at Aprovecho Stove Camp this 
summer (22 - 26 July) to zero in on what factors impact the emissions 
and efficiencies in which ways in the TLUD stoves.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 4/29/2013 7:06 PM, Frank Shields wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> See below:
>
> *From:*rongretlarson at comcast.net [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2013 3:13 PM
> *To:* Frank Shields
> *Cc:* Jim Jetter; Hugh McLaughlin; Discussion of biomass cooking 
> stoves; Paul Anderson
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for 
> complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
>
> Frank and ccs
>
>    Thanks.  No problems with the following.   My concern was that you 
> didn't believe the stove name should be released - and that seems not 
> to be the case.
>
> I do believe the stove name should not be released - except to us. 
> Where the results will not be missed used. That is to use it for 
> marketing and not just for research information as it should.
>
> You don't address this below, but I think this list should ask if all 
> 6 of your steps are now adequately covered by GACC,  Jim Jetter,  the 
> WBT 4.2.1, and the other non-lab tests, that have many of the 
> characterstics of 4.2.1   I think they are, with the possible 
> exception of your step 5.  I think time spent in tending to the stoves 
> is an important stove variable and should fit there.   I think from 
> conversations with Jim that something new to report may be in the 
> works there.
>
> Yes – the WBT as my understanding it from time back (I need to 
> revisit) does specify many of the variables.
>
> I also think that the stove developer should be able to specify or 
> veto the fuel type (your 1 and 2).   I don't know if that is always 
> possible now.  At a minimum Jm etal should announce in advance the 
> types of fuels they can supply.
>
> The stove developer should have no say as to how this test (WBT) is 
> conducted except for possible suggestions as to his findings to what 
> makes it work best. The purpose of this test is **research**. Like 
> what Dean and Larry did years ago to find the best gap above the pot 
> and the 10 stove rules. This test does little (unless redesigned) for 
> real world comparison as this procedure is only IN Box 3 and does not 
> include the outside variables (other boxes). Stove designers are doing 
> the researchers a favor to have them use their stoves for this 
> research. For example: If Paul Anderson TLUD comes out much better 
> than another is it useless info (for the real world) and only useful 
> if the researcher goes the **extra step** to determine why.  That 
> might be to fill the fire box with flowing sand to determine its 
> volume or measure air flow or, as Crispin is planning, to measure the 
> stack gas. Anything to give a clue or info where a change can make the 
> not-so-good stove the same as the good stove and the good stove better.
>
>
>   Last.   I think I would prefer to see results for one stove use.   
> Why 1000 people (or stoves? or families?)? Are you recommending for 
> one day or one year. or?
>     You have emphasized fuel amounts (kg?) rather than energy 
> efficiency.  OK to do both?
>
> I just mention units of measure that are of real interest to the real 
> world, ‘Fuel required to live / person’/ time. Following the energy 
> from the fuel is what Crispin and Jim are doing (research to find the 
> best materials and optimum gaps and air-gas mixes etc.). That to 
> improve Box 3 (Stoves) that will lower the **fuel** required to 
> **live** per **day**. Using stoves supplied for the research they can 
> start by seeing what each stove can do then determine the reason one 
> is better over the other. Best of luck to them as it will not be easy 
> as we have seen all these years. They continue work done by Dean and 
> Larry and others but doing it on other types of stoves. At least 
> that’s the way I see it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank Shields
>
> BioChar Division
>
> Control Laboratories, Inc.
>
> 42 Hangar Way
>
> Watsonville, CE 95076
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel
>
> (81) 724-3188 fax
>
> frank at biocharlab.com <mailto:frank at biocharlab.com>
>
> www.controllabs.com
>
>
>    Again,  thanks.
>
> Ron
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Frank Shields" <frank at compostlab.com 
> <mailto:frank at compostlab.com>>
> *To: *"Ron" <rongretlarson at comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>, "Discussion of biomass cooking 
> stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org 
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>, "Paul Anderson" 
> <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
> *Cc: *"Jim Jetter" <Jetter.Jim at epamail.epa.gov 
> <mailto:Jetter.Jim at epamail.epa.gov>>, "Hugh McLaughlin" 
> <wastemin1 at verizon.net <mailto:wastemin1 at verizon.net>>
> *Sent: *Monday, April 29, 2013 12:14:57 PM
> *Subject: *RE: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for 
> complete sets of raw data        of cookstove tests.
>
>
> Ron and all,
>
> <snip>
>
>   Can you tell us more of how to best get and use all of Jim's test 
> results?  Any precedents in the
>
> (your) testing world?
>
>
> Ron
>
> Working from the big picture we are trying to: ‘reduce the Fuel 
> required for living  / 1000 people’.
>
> To study ways to do this we need to get organized and control the 
> variables as we follow the energy from the fuel to the task. They are:
>
> 1: Fuel
>
> 2: fuel manipulation
>
> 3: stoves
>
> 4) utensil
>
> 5) utensil manipulation
>
> 6) task
>
> If we work on and improve one of the six then the total fuel required 
> is reduced per  the 1000 people. And working in each group is what we 
> are doing but not in an organized manor. The stoves being tested that 
> Paul is talking about is working within group three. Determining what 
> makes one stove better than another. Making better briquettes is group 
> one and stating fuel placed in a stove vertical works better than 
> horizontal is group two. So to answer your question: I would like to 
> see in the report that Jim produces 1) chemical and physical 
> properties and a description of the fuel used during testing and 2) 
> the frequency and manipulation of the fuel when added to each stove 
> tested along with the 3) Stove (name and designer etc.)  4) utensils 
> used, 5) water stirring frequency etc and 6) results of the Task. So 
> NOT a BIG DEAL!
>
> Then if there are different results found at Stove Camp than what Jim 
> reports we have a chance of looking through the conditions and, 
> perhaps, determine the cause.
>
> Also; When stove users determine one size fraction or moisture content 
> or how best to introduce fuel to a stove makes a difference in results 
> – send that info to the appropriate group. As that is a parameter that 
> should be included in a test package. If it is observed in the ‘real 
> world’ people will only do something one way – send that info to the 
> group working on that section. That is when(if) we get these groups in 
> place!
>
> I suggest Paul bring to Stove Camp a handful of biomass used at a 
> location where he wants to sell his stove and make sure the report 
> from Stove Camp reports the six parameters. He will be able to show 
> results  based on ‘real’ fuel.
>
> Also: I don’t get into all this following the energy  stuff and how to 
> calculate in the char etc. If someone needs char and has a use for it 
> – that is ‘required for living’. If when cooking the house overheats 
> so the front door is kept open that is no different than cooking in 
> winter and closing the front door – ‘required for living’.
>
> Thanks for asking! Sometimes I think I am only talking to myself. : )
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank Shields
>
> BioChar Division
>
> Control Laboratories, Inc.
>
> 42 Hangar Way
>
> Watsonville, CE  95076
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel
>
> (81) 724-3188 fax
>
> frank at biocharlab.com <mailto:frank at biocharlab.com>
>
> www.controllabs.com <http://www.controllabs.com>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130430/ad4b1453/attachment.html>