[Stoves] Purpose of testing and value given to char left.

[Ronal W. Larson]

Crispin,  list,  Frank

I am responding here to the fourth today on this topic in a sequence started by Frank - after a lot of time on #1 (not given below) . I am not intending to say anything on most, except this from the sec on - by Crispin, where he said:

In this case it is with a new protocol that is strongly informed by local patterns of use. That should give us more predictable results in the field. Because the social science (social impact potential) has been assessed beforehand, we can make a pretty good estimate of whether or not a stove will be acceptable. One metric is cooking power, another is controllability. A third is lighting speed. Another is cost and durability.
 
Q1.  What are our chances of seeing the social science side of this?
	I am particularly interested in how the questions were asked about making money while cooking and saving time.

Q2.  Why in the list of the stated metrics do we not see these earnings and time saving metrics (plus emission control, which I presume was a social science question) that are favorable to char-making stoves?

Ron


On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Crispin Pembert-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Frank
>  
> This is an important point you raise:
>  
> >>At the moment we are using a comparative test to pretend the result is ‘certified’, meaning ‘absolute’ but in reality, the lab and the procedure and the number of replications, even the calibration protocols and lab training would not really allow one to claim with precision that the result was ‘certified’ correct. We have to do what we can with the equipment available, in the time we have and in a spirit of fairness.
>  
> >If the results from this process go into a list of stove and then used to pick the one to be used – I think it not good enough, in fact meaningless, with all the added variables.
>  
> Well we have to be practical here: yes the number will have no meaning out of context.
>  
> Let me rephrase that as I did during a comment presented to the ISO meeting in Kenya:
>  
> A stove test result has no meaning without context. All test results require context, there is no value in an abstract number – it is just a number. Because all programmes intend to distribute stoves in a particular context, that is the context in which the stove should be tested for the results to be useful. Useful means relevant to the policy objectives of the project.
>  
> What has been tried (without much success it is fair to point out) is to produce a set of metrics for stoves that are ‘universal’ in the sense that if the task and fuel were constant, one could compare the performance universally. This is the stated intent of the IWA and other good and well-intentioned works by the stove community. A universal translator, so to speak, would be able to make comparisons across the board.
>  
> The problem with this is that such a comparison has to take place without local context and local context is required to make a meaningful comparison. In other words the universal test is a mirage. There is no such thing. As soon as you change the fuel or the pot or the burn cycle or the operator’s technique, there is a different context and the test result has lost its value.
>  
> If you want to test a fish dryer, you should test it drying fish in a place that it is intended to be used, using the fish and fuel available in that place. How another device dries those same fish with that fuel cannot be determined by using a ‘universal fish’ and a ‘universal fuel’. Such things do not exist, and you cannot make a technology choice based on it.
>  
> Supposed you wanted to buy a car to use as a taxi in Bangladesh. Which is the ‘best car’ and ‘best fuel’? First you have to see what the roads are like in Bangladesh, which side of the road they drive on, whether or not it is permitted to open the doors on the centre-lane side, and of course what the fuel is like in that place. All these provide context. The taxi will have to be maintained. Are parts available?
>  
> While it may be possible to have some universal features of stoves judged, it has proven impossible both theoretically and practically to choose a stove on the basis of a de-contextualized assessment, and it will remain so. If people boil 20 litres of water in 25 litre pots using palm fronds, then that is the test that has to be applied when selecting technologies. How it performs a ‘5 litre WBT’ is literally irrelevant to that context.
>  
>  
> >…We are just dealing with Fuel Consumption. Emissions and adaption is for a later discussion – but very connected.
>  
> OK, If you wish.
>  
> >>One of the very confusing things that has permeated the stove testing community is the erroneous idea that the heat value in the fuel left over has a great deal of significance.
>  
> >Only important if you go through all the work of determining it and then use it in the calculations.
>  
> Well, you have to have an overview in mind when making calculations. You don’t just measure and divide things because they are there.  If the heat content of the fuel remaining is not relevant, there is no need to measure it. With an LPG stove, you just subtract the fuel remaining from the fuel you had to begin with. End of short story. If a stove needs raw fuel and produces char and ash, then you need that raw fuel next time. What is in the char and ash is not relevant to the question of how much fuel new is being consumed each time.
>  
> >…So should be mentioned with each stove and nice if we can come up with best guess for the quality of the char and what it might be used for. Not for fuel consumption discussions.
>  
> There is a lot of value in looking into the char materials and applications. I am personally excited by the possibility of using a pair of stoves to make char and burn it later. The reason is that charcoal and wood are often used for very different purposes in the kitchen. Having a dual fuel kitchen would offer many advantages. A project could evaluate the stoves and fuels as a pair of technologies – no problems. The calculations for each product on their own would still of course have to be valid.
>  
> Thanks for you work on the 450C story. I am still interested in fully understanding it.
> Crispin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140224/f40a223b/attachment.html>