[Stoves] Testing stoves for their intended use

[Paul Anderson]

Dear all,

First, I will thank Michael for his reply.

Second, I will exclaim my shock that NOBODY ELSE made any reply. What 
does that tell us?

"Silence means consent."   That would mean that you all agree with me, 
and with Crispin.   Sir Thomas Moore used that argument, and then they 
chopped off his head.

Or maybe you are waiting until ETHOS to bring up the issues?

Or maybe you are in such profound disagreement that you are in shock 
that someone would suggest that the standard WBT might not be sufficient?

Or maybe you just want this topic to disappear?

Anyway, ETHOS is virtually upon us; many start their travel within a day 
from now.   Let's hope that some discussion, whether in agreement or 
disagreement, can be heard there AND on the Listserv.

Paul

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

On 1/20/2014 12:10 AM, d.michael.shafer at gmail.com wrote:
> Amen.
>
> This is a wonderful, specific statement of a general problem that has 
> plagued the stove "movement" for a long time. If you haven't sat next 
> to the woman in her own kitchen and cooked with her, you don't know 
> diddly about cook stoves and anything you do in the arena might as 
> well be shooting in the wood smoke.
>
> M
>
>
> *Michael Shafer* Director , Warm Heart
> Tel: + 1-732-745-9295 | Mobile: + 66(85)-199-2958
> d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com> | 
> www.warmheartworldwide.org <http://www.warmheartworldwide.org>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu 
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     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 actual 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  <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>    
>     Skype: paultlud      Phone:+1-309-452-7072  <tel:%2B1-309-452-7072>
>     Website:www.drtlud.com  <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140121/c9540a97/attachment.html>