[Stoves] Revisiting WBT and performance metrics - revisiting history

Mon Aug 7 10:54:05 CDT 2017

Dear Nikhil,

Well said. 

The PM 2.5 metric has wasted more years and falsely put more stoves at the top for marketing.

The WBT was well designed going from Fuel >> completed Task but fails for three reasons: 
1) The test for fuel was poorly designed. Stopping a fire in seconds and sorting the char from ash and wood not reproducible.
2) The fuel test had no connection to the fuel at the location the stove was planned to be used.
3) Too many matrices that were just stated and not actually tested. 

The fuel (processed) for the WBT was chosen to produce the best results. Not chosen to give reproducible results. Best results are for the purpose of improving combustion chamber measurements etc. Collecting wild biomass from around a location, chopping, cutting, splitting and drying to produce a homogenous mix would give reproducible results and be more like what might be used. 

What needs to be done:
Fuel needs to be based on matrices that cross all biomass fuels. I suggest fixed and volatile matter. 
Its the fixed and volatile matter that is used to compare from site to site (along with other data like shape, size, etc).
The fuel tested and compared is done using very dry fuel. The effects of increasing moisture can be determined and plotted later.

We need more Completed Tasks in addition to boiling water to be used when comparing stoves. 

 Also; The testing does not consider the goal intended because the goal is different for each area. Saving wood, faster cooking, less 2.5 pollution, less fuel preparation time, etc are all different goals. Some more important than others depending on the location. The testing just reports the matrices that are needed to determine these goals. The end user decides the goals more important. 

We need a list of suitable stoves for an area. That where the fuel on site can be used in a stove to complete a task. The requirements (fuel prep.) and matrices (fuel used, time, 2.5PM) during completion are reported.  Individual decisions are made to determine the stove they want to purchase. Stoves that are not suitable (cannot complete a specific task) are not on the list. 

Regards

Frank 

> On Aug 6, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Nikhil Desai <ndesai at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Xavier: 
> 
> I don't know about Ecostove performing badly with the WBT and still being superior to the traditional stoves. As you know, I don't think much of the efficiency metric -- no tree needs to be "saved" if its use has a higher value - and PM2.5 is only a recent fad thanks to Kirk Smith and WHO. I don't think much of mg/min emission rates cooked into the cake of annual average concentrations irrespective of fuel and cooking practices. 
> 
> But if Ecostove is found to be usable and used, that is a success, no matter what lab tests say. Maybe only a success of marketing and delivery chains, but that - as Kirk Smith says after his second epiphany - is more important than mere science. 
> 
> Science and marketing merge in product engineering. Let's see who succeeds. Do you think the ISO TC-285 exercise is less about science and more about marketing, by fooling people about "health benefits" or specific mg/min Emission Rate ranges for different Tiers? 
> 
> Nikhil
> 
> ------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> Skype: nikhildesai888
> 
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear Nikhil,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for sharing these 2 papers. They really nailed it, and that was already back in 2011.
> 
>  
> 
> The Aprovecho Research Center has been pushing for years the WBT and rocket stove designs with their golden rules without the expected success.
> 
> The example of the Ecostove is really interesting. It performs badly with the WBT but probably still is a great stove compared to the traditional stoves. It shows how much relying on the WBT has been problematic.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul,
> 
>  
> 
> I have to look more into detail this new handbook by the GACC and MIT.
> 
> I think I'll post about it next week.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> Xavier
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> De : Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>] 
> Envoyé : mardi 1 août 2017 20:28
> À : Xavier Brandao
> Cc : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Cecil Cook; Tami Bond; Robert van der Plas; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Objet : Revisiting WBT and performance metrics - revisiting history
> 
>  
> 
> List, Xavier: 
> 
> I stumbled upon paper a few months ago - Sustaining Culture with Sustainable Stoves:The Role of Tradition in Providing Clean-BurningStoves to Developing Countries <http://www.consiliencejournal.org/index.php/consilience/article/viewFile/157/67>,  Consilience, The Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 5, Iss. 1 (2011), Pp. 71-95. Britta Victor Department of Anthropology Princeton University, Princeton, NJ  .  
> 
> 
> It is relevant to the earlier discussion on the tensions between physical and social scientists or students of cultures and foods, and the pursuit of energy efficiency as the sole metric. 
> 
> There is another 2011 paper - A Review of Global Cookstoves Programs <https://mlgifford.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cookstove-programs_berkeley-thesis.pdf>, by Mary Louise Gifford - that cites some of the same material that is cited by Britta Victor, and reaches similar, though less strong conclusions, namely that global technologists alone are likely to fail. 
> 
> Nikhil
> 
>  
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> Excerpt from Britta Victor's Sustaining Culture with Sustainable Stoves:The Role of Tradition in Providing Clean-Burning Stoves to Developing Countries <http://www.consiliencejournal.org/index.php/consilience/article/viewFile/157/67>, Consilience 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com

franke at cruzio.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170807/a237545a/attachment.html>