[Stoves] Testing stoves for their intended use was Re: ETHOS Discussion about decentalized stove efforts

[Paul Anderson]

Stovers,

The snip below from Crispin raises good questions that should be 
discussed, at ETHOS and on the Listserv and at the testing centers:
On 1/15/2014 3:29 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> There are so many sectors of the stove market that we should prepare 
> appliances for and it is good to be reminded now and then that the 
> local use to which a stove might be put could be very much unlike 
> 'cooking'.
>
> In Indonesia people routinely have 4 or 5 different cooking devices 
> which they use when they are preparing 'that food', just like I do at 
> home. Each one can be called a stove, but they are specialised, 
> really, and do something things really well that he others do not.
>
> Cecil Cook in his investigations last year into the use of fuels and 
> stove found people in Central Java (where is about to be launched an 
> improved stove rollout) were very adept at picking particular fuels 
> for certain purposes, as well as using multiple stoves during any 
> month. Come fuels were used only for high power and some for keeping a 
> fire /just/ going for a long time.
>
>
Basically, a stove (any stove) should be tested in relation to its 
intended and highly likely use.

This testing should NOT be the only testing.   Certainly testing with 
accepted standard test procedures should be INCLUDED so that stoves can 
be compared, especially if the stove is to be for "general" cooking 
practices, not the specialized ones such as those of the Indonesian cooks.

But standard testing should NOT be the only testing if a stove has a 
special purpose, such as boiling water for drinking (nobody simmers 
their drinking water!!!)

Without BOTH types of testing, the stove APPROVERS would only be able to 
judge according to the standard results.

By saying "approvers" I am referring to:

A.  the guardians of the Tier system based on only the complete tests

and

B.  The actually cooks who could quickly reject an "approved stove for 
general usage" when they know very well that a NOT-APPROVED stove does 
their specific cooking task so much better.

A or B.   Make your choice.    Or perhaps the guardians of "A" should 
include tests (or separate REPORTED results) specific to some very 
common types of cooking, such as boiling water, or high-heat frying, or 
just the simmer part (which can be accomplished very well by a smaller 
version of many of our stoves.

Essentially, if these important specifics are not provided, much of the 
system of stove testing with the standard WBT will be ignored.

Or worse, the standard WBT results could mean that favoritism for some 
stove manufacturers (for funding and for Tier qualification) could 
result is the reduced availability (or even banning) of some excellent 
stoves that serve important but specific tasks.

I hope this is discussed at ETHOS, on the Listserv, and beyond.

Paul     (in Tanzania, on Saturday at an Adventist facility, so sort of 
like a day off in order to catch up.  But I will go to villages 
tomorrow, and then home in time for ETHOS and the Aprovecho Open House.)


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140118/60533dfb/attachment.html>