[Stoves] SNV results in Camaroon including TLUD issues

[Crispin Pembert-Pigott]

Dear Bjarne

 

"I therefore find it unfair that the Mwoto gasification stove get such
negative review."

 

It may be reasonable to think of it not as a negative review of the stove,
but a negative review of the fit between the stove and that particular
community, approached in that manner. We can't tell much about the stove
from the report.

 

Because I don't believe a single claim about a stove's performance unless I
know how it was tested, we are still in the dark as to what the product can
do. I would be happy to receive a copy of any test report you have to check
it out.

 

I try to keep test methods and implementation rules open enough for an
imaginative stove producer to sell something really different, if they have
a chance to put their case clearly. By that I mean the methods of testing
should be realistic so there is an understanding of how things should go in
the field, and also to try not to limit telling people what they can't sell.
People buy and use a lot of funny things.

 

The TLUD is a special case for most people because it is so different in
fuel and operation. It is very likely that most people will not adopt it
unless the local cooking habits just happen to coincide with the power and
duration of that version of the technology. That could be 'never' in some
communities.

 

Although I have not heard of anyone developing this at the moment, there is
a lot to be gained from creating crossdraft stoves instead of TLUD's. The
fuel is the same, the performance is the same, but they can be refuelled
forever and they can be controlled better, de-ashed, and sized to suit. Most
of the TLUD's try to burn a gas volume in a diameter equal to the fuel
cylinder. That is a cause of difficulty right away as it is hard to turn
down such a device and maintain the flame. That sort of thing.we should
perhaps branch out a bit into crossdraft technology.

 

Stove promotion should always be preceded by stove anthropology.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

 

I agree very much with Crispin and AJH that social acceptability is one of
the most important aspect of getting ICS to work in practice.

However I have some reservations about the SNV test in Cameroon. 

We know that requirements towards stoves differs very much from area to
area. When test are done by taking different stoves from different countries
and testing these stoves without modifications so these stoves meet the
requirements of the area of testing, as seems to be the case in this
testing. Then these stoves will likely fall short of requirements. 

This will especially be the case of batch stoves like gasification stoves
that often have special requirements for fuel. If cooking time in the new
area are different from what the batch stove can provide, then there will be
problems. It is therefore important that stoves is modified and adapted
towards the requirements of the area before it is tested.

I therefore find it unfair that the Mwoto gasification stove get such
negative review. 

We also know that it takes time for households and cooks to get used to new
stoves and cooking method. So by only allowing test households one week to
test a stove and even asking the same households to test 5 different stoves
for one week each. For me such testing procedure seems likely to give some
bias in the testing process. 

Bjarne Laustsen 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140307/1322a0a0/attachment.html>