[Stoves] Fuel and Forestry etc.

[Ronal W. Larson]

List and Crispin:

    Again,  I assume that Crispin wanted this sent to all.

   Apparently we will see what Crispin feels needs changing at the ETHOS meeting.  So better I wait to see those.  I haven’t learned anything new below.

  I still would like to see what changes are now in the two testing procedures where Crispin is involved.

Ron


On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ron
>  
> Sorry, I keep hitting “Reply” and sometimes it goes to the list and sometimes to you directly.
>  
> It is good netiquette to put OFF LIST or ON THE SIDE in the subject line of private messages so if you don’t see that it was inadvertent.  Thanks for forwarding.
>  
>  
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ron
>  
>    “….  the major pathologies have been excised …”
>    
>    2.  We have discoursed on your not measuring char production in the proposed test procedures for Indonesia.  Is char-production still a “pathology” that you have “excised", or do you now measure char production when testing stoves designed to intentionally make char?  
>  
> I am not sure what you think of as a pathology. You comment seems intended to create one. What do you think is a pathology in current tests on the matter of char creation?
>      [RWL:  I don’t see any particular pathology around. You (not me) introduced the term “ pathology” and my response (repeated below and a little above) was to try to learn your meaning of the word.   I am happy with the way Jim Jetter is reporting char production.  I do not get an answer to my question on whether Jim’s current reporting is a “pathology” from your response - maybe below.
> 
> To me a pathology (as the word intends) is an illness or something that needs fixing. Reporting the char produced is not a ‘pathology’. Is reporting the char produced. I don’t see anything wrong with that, do you? The heat value of the char has also (for a while anyway) been reported by Jin because he has the facility to measure it. I hope to be able to do that at the YDD lab (regional) in Indonesia. We would report, however, the heat content of the ‘fuel remaining’ not just the char unless someone wanted that in particular.
>  
> A customer is free to ask for anything they want to pay for in a stove. If they want one that creates char – no problem; similarly they may want to burn their collected fuel cleanly and completely. Stove programmes are also free to promote what they want.  
>     [RWL:  No pathology here.  We agree.  It is not clear whether your stove testing will tell the person wanting to create char anything of value.
>  
> I do not follow you on this comment. What do you mean “of value”? If someone wants to know something in particular they will ask and it will be reported. We do not of course create expense where none is wanted. When you order some tests you can have whatever you want: HHV, LHV in the raw fuel, ditto in the fuel remaining or the char or a size fraction of the char (i.e. everything larger than 20mm etc).
> 
> The test method employed (SeTAR SOP 30.03 also the “Indonesian CSI-WBT”) reports fuel consumption, defined as the new fuel required to complete a burn cycle. The usability of the fuel remaining in the same stove (not just the char which is hard to define precisely) is considered in that calculation.
>    [RWL:  I sense a “pathology” here.  No char reporting in these two standard tests, I gather..
> 
> There is ‘fuel remaining however tests are run in triplets and the overall energy numbers are used. I still am not clear exactly what you want to see with your repetition of the char and its ‘something or other’. Important: char will not be treated mathematically as unburned raw fuel for fuel consumption assessment. If could however be treated as ‘fuel’ (not raw fuel) if it can be burned in that same stove.
>  
> A ‘pathology’ would be to calculate the energy production (actual or theoretical) and report that as the fuel consumption. 
>    [RWL:  We’ll have to agree to disagree.  I don’t know any other way to talk about stove inefficiencies  (not efficiencies).  Some users of stoves think the tradeoff with char in the picture in energy terms is worthwhile.
>  
> I recommend you have a look at the Definitions that I will send to ETHOS as a handout. Someone can please assist in that. There are several definitions suggested for Fuel consumption, energy consumption, overall energy consumption, and energy gain by the pot etc. It would be helpful to this conversation if you would clearly state what you see as the ‘fuel consumption’ and the ‘energy consumption’ and delineate clearly how to account for the total energy available in the raw fuel used each day and how to differentiate that from the energy in fuel that is never realised: dropped fuel, unburned fuel, partially burned fuel, char in the ash, unburned gasses, partially burned gases and anything else you can think of that results in potential fuel energy not being made available to the pot. 
>  
> Prof Harold Annegarn last year made a presentation on ‘Metrics’ and the importance of agreement on what metrics to track. This year we would like to hold a discussion on ‘Definitions’ because there are many definitions that are vague including ‘fuel consumption’. A problem that persists in the stove community is the use of the terms fuel consumption and energy consumption as synonyms. Similarly, the term ‘heat delivered’ (to a pot) is not the same as the “heat accumulated” or its synonym ‘net heat gained’ (by the pot). The first is a heat flux to the pot and the latter two are changes in enthalpy.  Rating performance requires that we measure the change in enthalpy. Because evaporation of boiling water results in a drop in enthalpy in the pot, consideration is made for this in reporting the performance. To do this usefully, we have to agree on metrics and definitions.
>  
> With regard to the fuel:
>  
> If you have 1 ton of fuel available, and you use ½ the energy cooking and have ½ the energy remaining in the form of char, the raw fuel resource has been processed through the stove. It matters a great deal what happens to that char. If you bury it in the ground, then another ton of raw fuel must be sought.  If it goes to a second stove as fuel, it is lost to the first, and the first stove owner must seek a new ton of raw fuel. If the char can be (and is) burned in the first stove, then is it fuel still available to the owner.
>  
> There have to be some rules applied in these different cases. You can’t have people taking raw fuel from the available resource and then pretending that the next day pretending they are not again taking more because yesterday’s char has been buried. Fuel conservation watches the raw fuel flow. That is not my idea, that is what they do. They want to know how much raw fuel is taken per cooking event by a stove. We will of course report that factually.
> 
> 
>  
> If you want to know the char produced, ask and define what you mean by ‘char’. It will be reported. If you want to know the energy value in that char, ask and it will be tested and reported. 
>    [RWL:  Yup - that sounds pathological.  Not clear to me why a stove manufacturer has to ask for this, when it is (probably) labeled as a char-making stove, and may not even know his/her stove is being tested.
> 
> They will have to ask because that is how labs work: fee for service. Some people only want to know the fire-to-pot heat transfer efficiency and nothing more. That is the information (and invoice) they get. What’s the big deal?
>  
>    3.  My question includes all possible “major pathologies”, not just char-production (my meme).  Just hoping for a list we should be considering at ETHOS.
>  
> I didn’t rate pathologies as minor and major. A pathology common to a long list of stove tests is to report the mass of water boiled as being that which was put into the pot during heating but only what remains in the pot after boiling. That is just plain strange. Errors like that have been removed.
>     [RWL:  I was just repeating your phrase (see below) “major pathologies”.  Your description in sentence #2 doesn’t make sense (a missing word?).  In any case,  I see Jim Jetter’s always giving initial and final water quantities.  It is not clear what modification you have made or want made.  I consider the issue of measuring and reporting char production for all tests as a “major” disagreement (not a pathology).  This second one on water loss seems minor until I hear more.
> 
> This is #2. Are you referring to something here?
> +++++++++++++
>    2.  We have discoursed on your not measuring char production in the proposed test procedures for Indonesia.  Is char-production still a “pathology” that you have “excised", or do you now measure char production when testing stoves designed to intentionally make char?  
>  
> I am not sure what you think of as a pathology. You comment seems intended to create one. What do you think is a pathology in current tests on the matter of char creation?
> ++++++++++
>  
> “Correcting” the mass of water boiled by factoring in the difference between a fixed ‘local boiling point’ and the temperature the water actually reached is another.  All the calculations are based on first principles and all terms are defined.
>     [RWL:  I guess these first principles and defined terms are all in the two test procedures you identified above.  Can you give exact URLs and pertinent sections to look at?  
>        I conclude from your response that measuring char production you consider to be a major pathology and such measurement now has been excised in two national standards.  Sorry about both parts of that sentence.    Ron
> 
> You are again pretending that I think something about char that is ‘different’. Why? What is it you want? You have several times said I think ‘measuring char’ is wrong. I don’t think it is wrong at all. Go ahead – measure it.  What’s wrong with that? If it is a ‘feature’ of the stove you would want to know about it, correct?
>  
> In the above responses I have clearly stated that if you want to know the amount or heat value of the char fraction of the fuel remaining, ask. You are the only one who knows why you persist in this. I do not report things, labs do. There is nearly no test in the world that is accompanied by a report on the heat content of char from a stove and for good reason: cost.
>  
> You are working strenuously in the field of char-making stoves and have an interest in specialised analyses of the product. Do you want all testing in the world to be saddled with the cost of making these assessments? Surely not!
>  
> I have in the past suggested to you and Paul that considering the raw fuel, processing it, sending char to a second stove as a traded fuel is a) a good idea and b) that it be considered as a single system and analysed as such. It would help you in your quest to rate char production from raw fuel and the economic benefits that might accrue to such a char producer. I already reported the findings of Prianti Utami who found that candle nut shells made very good TLUD fuel and produced strong charcoal, which I interpreted as being transportable to a distant urban market. I really like this idea. The char production rate and heating value would be critical to that analysis and would be requested from the lab.
>  
> However, the elements of the system (two different stoves) would still be analysed separately and the combined results produced in a report. The method of measuring each stove individually would be the same as we do it now.
>  
> Regards
> Crispin


For completeness,  I add the following that I sent out late on the 21st:


Rongretlarson Larson
To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott, Discussion of biomass
Re: [Stoves] Fuel and Forestry etc.

Crispin,  I take the liberty of responding to the whole list since 1) you didn’t ask me not to, 2)  you wished you had on the last similar message to me, 3) because the stove list likely mostly wants to hear, and 4) because we both think the topics are important.
  
I have added your and my previous two messages for clarity.

See inserts.

On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ron
>  
>    “….  the major pathologies have been excised …”
>    
>    2.  We have discoursed on your not measuring char production in the proposed test procedures for Indonesia.  Is char-production still a “pathology” that you have “excised", or do you now measure char production when testing stoves designed to intentionally make char?  
>  
> I am not sure what you think of as a pathology. You comment seems intended to create one. What do you think is a pathology in current tests on the matter of char creation?
     [RWL:  I don’t see any particular pathology around. You (not me) introduced the term “ pathology” and my response (repeated below and a little above) was to try to learn your meaning of the word.   I am happy with the way Jim Jetter is reporting char production.  I do not get an answer to my question on whether Jim’s current reporting is a “pathology” from your response - maybe below.
>  
> A customer is free to ask for anything they want to pay for in a stove. If they want one that creates char – no problem; similarly they may want to burn their collected fuel cleanly and completely. Stove programmes are also free to promote what they want.  
    [RWL:  No pathology here.  We agree.  It is not clear whether your stove testing will tell the person wanting to create char anything of value.
>  
> The test method employed (SeTAR SOP 30.03 also the “Indonesian CSI-WBT”) reports fuel consumption, defined as the new fuel required to complete a burn cycle. The usability of the fuel remaining in the same stove (not just the char which is hard to define precisely) is considered in that calculation.
   [RWL:  I sense a “pathology” here.  No char reporting in these two standard tests, I gather..
>  
> A ‘pathology’ would be to calculate the energy production (actual or theoretical) and report that as the fuel consumption. 
   [RWL:  We’ll have to agree to disagree.  I don’t know any other way to talk about stove inefficiencies  (not efficiencies).  Some users of stoves think the tradeoff with char in the picture in energy terms is worthwhile.
>  
> If you want to know the char produced, ask and define what you mean by ‘char’. It will be reported. If you want to know the energy value in that char, ask and it will be tested and reported. 
   [RWL:  Yup - that sounds pathological.  Not clear to me why a stove manufacturer has to ask for this, when it is (probably) labeled as a char-making stove, and may not even know his/her stove is being tested.
>  
>    3.  My question includes all possible “major pathologies”, not just char-production (my meme).  Just hoping for a list we should be considering at ETHOS.
>  
> I didn’t rate pathologies as minor and major. A pathology common to a long list of stove tests is to report the mass of water boiled as being that which was put into the pot during heating but only what remains in the pot after boiling. That is just plain strange. Errors like that have been removed.
    [RWL:  I was just repeating your phrase (see below) “major pathologies”.  Your description in sentence #2 doesn’t make sense (a missing word?).  In any case,  I see Jim Jetter’s always giving initial and final water quantities.  It is not clear what modification you have made or want made.  I consider the issue of measuring and reporting char production for all tests as a “major” disagreement (not a pathology).  This second one on water loss seems minor until I hear more.
>  
> “Correcting” the mass of water boiled by factoring in the difference between a fixed ‘local boiling point’ and the temperature the water actually reached is another.  All the calculations are based on first principles and all terms are defined.
    [RWL:  I guess these first principles and defined terms are all in the two test procedures you identified above.  Can you give exact URLs and pertinent sections to look at?  
       I conclude from your response that measuring char production you consider to be a major pathology and such measurement now has been excised in two national standards.  Sorry about both parts of that sentence.    Ron
>  
> I would be pleased to have a presentation of it at ETHOS but that is very unlikely – no time and no ticket.
>  
> Regards
> Crispin



On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:

> Crispin and list
> 
>    1.  Since we are a few days away from the ETHOS meeting, and there will be some funders there, I hope you can elaborate on this phrase from below:
> 
>>    “….  the major pathologies have been excised …”
>    
>    2.  We have discoursed on your not measuring char production in the proposed test procedures for Indonesia.  Is char-production still a “pathology” that you have “excised", or do you now measure char production when testing stoves designed to intentionally make char?  
> 
>    3.  My question includes all possible “major pathologies”, not just char-production (my meme).  Just hoping for a list we should be considering at ETHOS.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Samer
>>  
>> It is my hope that Cecil Cook will wander through here one day because we spent a great deal of time looking into these problems
>>  
>> >In particular I will be keen to explore more deeply the ramifications for testing, actual fuel use, and the memes that relate these to problems of deforestation and health.
>>  
>> By that I mean the problems related to the use of information generated by the specialists who do not individually have much administrative control over project design and management (in a lot of cases – there are exceptions).
>>  
>> I recall some years ago at ETHOS expressing a view that we really needed more input from professional marketing people – input to the stove designers, backyard inventors and hardly-ever-do-wells who are trying to make the world a better place with what little they have.
>>  
>> The value of this input is to separate developers of technology from their egos. No kidding. It is very disciplining to have in-your-face feedback about one’s preconceptions for a product. Marketing people have enough power in the relationship to make the message stick. If the speaker is an individual objecting to a stove product, they (although the customer) are often dismissed as not realising what a wonderful device I have created for you if you would just learn to use it properly it will do wonderful things and make your life better and your whole family will celebrate.
>>  
>> The next cold shower that brings benefit is professional traders who are the middlemen in the value chain. Sometimes we can stimulate their enthusiasm with storied stoves with creative claims attached, piggy-backing on their existing distribution systems and sneak a ‘better product’ into their display of wares.  Let’s say you can always do that once, but it had better work for them. They are pretty callous about viability and their depth of view is often not what is needed to launch a transformative stove product. They can make a living selling other things too so the product has to be viable, income-wise.
>>  
>> Another group that has had sterling success in attaching themselves to the wonderful world of stoves (Disney Kitchen?) is the health community with their agenda(s). The clear link between cooking and health is easily shown in any community and the health sector has been a major proponent of improved, especially lower-smoke stoves.
>>  
>> So these groups all have the capability to generate messages, and to receive and store them.  They can create, store, modify, refute and extrapolate memes arising from ‘things they heard’ about stoves.
>>  
>> The significant parallel I see in these collections of memes about what stoves do, can do, should do and really do and the significant paper you and Saeed have produced is that the complex world of stoves needs this sort of analysis in order to avoid falling into a variety of traps. These traps are the (often quite separate) agendas of a huge number of power centres always on the lookout for the Next Big Thing they can manage, prosper from, ride, lead, and ultimately benefit the generality of humankind through their good efforts.
>>  
>> I have drawn attention to external forces and interests, but there is, were one doing the same type of analysis as you have done, an internal group of forces or interests that produce their own memes and circulate and evolve them entirely within the stove community. One easy example is that ‘gasifiers are inherently cleaner burning than other combustors’.  In fact all fires are gas fires. Teasing out the intended meaning from these words gets one into a repetitive semantic discussion that doesn’t really mean much except to the participants. The meme continues, sailing along on the current of misunderstanding that there might be ‘other fires’ that do not burn gases and that those ‘other fires’ are inherently ‘dirtier’ that gasifier fires. Consider the remarkable examples (with hundreds of thousands of citations) of fuels themselves being given the attributes of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’!
>>  
>> These curiosities are fun and harmless unless they start to impact policy and that policy impact is driven by a power centre that lies outside the influence of the stove making community that create the meme in the first place. That power centre is now ‘misinformed’ and begins allocating the distribution of resources based on their understanding.
>>  
>> The result, in short, is that the projects which create, disseminate and promote improved stoves (however defined) and fuels (ditto) can be quite severely skewed towards goals that may actually be ephemeral. An alternative is that the goals are real, but low priority in the community of interest.
>>  
>> So, what to do about it. That is where Cecil Cook and Tig Tuntivate, Veronica Mendizabal, Helen Carlsson, Simon Bell, Iwan Boskoro, Prianti Utami, Christina Aristanti, Yabei Zhang plus too many others to mention come in. Taking a comprehensive view of what happens in the community (behaviour and resources), the market as it really exists, finance models that avoid as many pitfalls as possible, producers and distributors who are or want to be in the formal sector a new approach to the construction of a stove programme has been taken and is being piloted in Indonesia.
>>  
>> This approach includes significant changes in the way resources are allocated to those who ‘cause better stoves to be purchased’ (which is the ultimate goal of a viable stove industry). It includes upgrading the level of input to the point of power sharing from social scientists (social anthropologists and sociologists, social workers etc). It includes developing new and affordable test methods for making comparative evaluations that allow meaningfully accurate lab tests to realistically predict performance when the stoves are used in a target community. It includes careful programme design so that the system is scalable to Really Big if the spend is justifiable.
>>  
>> If you, Samer, were to study this initiative from the outside I think you would find the sort of critique you present in the paper has been done on multiple levels by this team, and as far as we were able in the time allocated, the major pathologies have been excised and hopeful innovations substituted. My hope is that they are well-considered!
>>  
>> I will provide more details related to the technical side of the project when it is appropriate.
>>  
>> Regards
>> Crispin freezing (again) in Waterloo
>>  
>> Technologizing Humanitarian Space: Darfur Advocacy and the Rape-Stove Panacea  Samer Abdelnour and Akbar M. Saeed
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259104849_Technologizing_Humanitarian_Space_Darfur_Advocacy_and_the_Rape-Stove_Panacea/file/5046352d950ca6cfdf.pdf?ev=pub_int_doc_dl&origin=publication_detail&inViewer=true
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140122/a98d3857/attachment.html>