[Stoves] The "50 stoves" report and methods of testing.
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Wed Aug 2 08:46:41 CDT 2017
Stovers,
Nikhil wrote today 2 August 2017:
>
> Let me quote a paper "Fuel use and emissions performance of fifty
> cooking stoves in the laboratory and related benchmarks of performance
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082610000311> Energy
> for Sustainable Development, Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages
> 161–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.06.002
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.06.002>.
>
> .. The authors claim in the Abstract:
>
>
> Performance of 50 different stove designs was investigated using
> the 2003 University of California-Berkeley (UCB) revised Water
> Boiling Test (WBT) Version 3.0 to compare the fuel use, carbon
> monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) emissions produced.
> While these laboratory tests do not necessarily predict field
> performance for actual cooking, t_he elimination of variables such
> as fuel, tending, and moisture content, helps to isolate and
> compare the technical properties of stove design_.
>
>
> It stretches credulity that stove designs are tested on the basis of
> excluding fuel, tending, and moisture content. This is engineering
> madness. Standard fuel, standard pots, standard water, standard field
> conditions (wind, humidity, temperature, ventilation). Not cook.
Let's look at the timeline of that report:
1. Publication in 2010. --- In modern-era cookstove chronology, that
is now rather old.
2. Did you notice that the WBT version was from 2003? (that would now
be called "ancient"). There is a story behind the half-decade between
2003 and 2010.
3. From my memory (so others can correct me with documentation and
rememberances, if needed), the 50 stove study was conducted in about
2004 - 05 (maybe in to 2006??). It was conducted by Aprovecho, with
funding from EPA or PCIA (or ???). I saw and read a draft (nearly
final, I think) back around 2005 or 06. But there were delays. Maybe
questions about funds for pubishing?? Anyway, in these types of
reasearch with grant money, the project file is not closed until results
are released, in this case a book. By 2010, the results were already
old. I have a copy somewhere, filed away. It has historical value to
show the thinking of the early times (2005, not 2010). And that is what
Nikhil pointed out with his comments about:
> [Quote from 2010 report]: While these laboratory tests do not
> necessarily predict field performance for actual cooking, t_he
> elimination of variables such as fuel, tending, and moisture content,
> helps to isolate and compare the technical properties of stove design_.
>
> [Nikhil's 2017 comment]: It stretches credulity that stove designs
> are tested on the basis of excluding fuel, tending, and moisture
> content. This is engineering madness. Standard fuel, standard pots,
> standard water, standard field conditions (wind, humidity,
> temperature, ventilation). Not cook.
Perhaps in 2017, we (the "stove-study community") are moving away from
those former practices. The testing proceedures today are certainly not
as rigid as in the past (even pellet fuels can be allowed in testing
:-)), but much of the old ways still remain. One example is the
allowance of "stove tending" to the extreme of the Rocket-stove practice
of spacing sawn wood that is advanced inch by inch (maybe cm by cm?) to
keep just the tips burning. Stove testers were (and are) trained and
then sit there for the entire test (with the stove conveniently
positioned at eye-level), nursing the fuel supply into the fire zone.
Nothing at all like the realities in the kitchens.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170802/cb7b8b0e/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list