[Stoves] TLUD stove is fragile, traditional stove is robust, no stove is antifragile

[lh cheng]

>
> >the "clean cookstoves" cult

Hah, I can smell. and I was thinking about this just this afternoon. but
anyway, some useful result did come out. let the cult worshiper do their
worship, let people use the result with discernment.

2017-12-03 12:25 GMT+08:00 Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>:

> Paul:
>
> From the sidelines --
>
> It seems to me field testing of real stoves with real fuels used by real
> cooks ought to have produced some answer as to the limits of performance as
> expected by the user.
>
> Can you or anybody else on this list tell me
>
>
> a) Whether such has been done for any project of more than 10,000
> installations in a reasonably narrow location, using performance metrics as
> desired by the users and testing protocols that reflect these expectations?
> b) Whether tens of millions of dollars spent by EPA on emissions research,
> or on epidemiology research by EPA and HHS (NIH, CDC) or the Gates
> Foundation, has found any insight into stove design parameters or testing
> protocols that may help further innovation?
>
>
> Doing robust monitoring in remote rural areas is quite expensive, as is
> continuing innovation for different shapes and sizes, cooking materials and
> types of cooking. Shouldn't those who hold Clean Cooking Summit and Clean
> Cooking Forum be responsible for generating a program just to this end?
>
> Listening to the EPA webinar on Thursday morning, I heard that, with one
> exception, experiments on mutagenecity of solid fuel emissions were all
> based on 3SF (Three Stone Fire) and many fuels; the exception was a single
> stove.
>
> I have been puzzled by claims by public health researchers that 3SF (or
> "rudimentary stoves") are the default . I have found zero evidence in
> support of this claim -- after all, there has been no survey of actual
> stoves in use - and zero evidence for related claims about "ventilation
> factors".
>
> Pending confirmation that a sufficient number of "representative studies"
> over representative regions, fuels, cooking types and stove types, building
> types, wind conditions, have been done to inform the model for HAP
> concentrations, I believe I am entitled to skepticism about tall claims and
> rich theories.
>
> Or, even leaving the WHO deceit on PM2.5 target per minute emission rate
> aside, I am safe in claiming that the ISO IWA declaration to the effect
> that the IWA was needed in order to respond an urgent market demand was a
> convenient lie.
>
> Or similarly, the promise that "international standards" would instantly
> catalyze a market response in terms of reliable, affordable "clean
> cookstoves" was a false promise, another convenient lie.
>
> Some of us have been fooled long enough. It is time to demand that those
> who spent the public's money - or tax-exempt contributions of private
> donors - show that they had run up alleys (say, TC-285) only to confirm
> that they were blind, or confess that they had lied.
>
> The only research beneficiaries of the "clean cookstoves" cult so far, it
> seems, are those who are stuck in the "boil water" and IWA "performance
> metrics" theories, theories of no demonstrated validity.
>
> Time to scale down expectations, demand transparency and accountability
> for all government and tax-exempt actors, or shut down GACC and begin a
> salvage operation.
>
> Supporting ISO TC-285 generally, or WBT in particular, is immoral.
> Supporting epidemiology research and Gold Standard aDALYs snake oil is even
> worse. The deceit has come full circle - from EPA mythology to (hopefully)
> a termination of EPA and ANSI engagement with TC-285.
>
> The truly faithful - GACC and D-Lab, I suppose - will wither away when
> monies run dry. They have used poor women for their convenience.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Cheng,    see below
>>
>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
>> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>>
>> On 12/2/2017 7:48 PM, lh cheng wrote:
>>
>> TLUD stove is efficient but fragile. this fragile concept comes from a
>> book "Antifragile", written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, like Dr Anderson, he
>> is a Doctor and professor. He have a good understanding of man-made
>> artificial system, have deep insight of the weakness of some man-made
>> system, and he find a good way to make money (of no small amount ) through
>> it from financial market.
>>
>> Fragile thing like Titanic ship, is high efficient, beautiful, but there
>> were big risks, which cannot be avoided anyway, underneath the surface,
>> when something wrong happened eventually, inevitably, no one can afford it.
>>
>> I criticize TLUD stove here, not in malice, but try to make something
>> clear, maybe we can find out the hindrance of its popularity, find a
>> direction to improve it, and help the user to use it in a safer way.
>>
>> TLUD stove separates gas combustion from gasification, and is batch-feed,
>> this combination create efficiency and convenience, but also big risk. many
>> thing can cause the fire ( gas combustion )  go out, too much or too little
>> gas, too much or too little air, temperature too low, (too much or too
>> little prmary air, cause too much or too little gas, both can lead to
>> extinguish of the secondary combustion), too much moisture in the fuel.
>> once the fire go out, great smoke jet out like crazy, poisonous, and the
>> fuel is burning inside the inner cylinder like crazy, no easy way to put
>> out the first combustion. it is very dangerous and bad situation for
>> housewife, neighbors scared by the big smoke, people even can got killed by
>> the poisonous gas. (when water can't low down the charcoal temperature,
>> water H2O can be turned into poisonous CO gas immediately).
>>
>> The paragraph above does not express the reality of 40,000 TLUD stove
>> users living closely together in We s Bengal, India.   the concerns you
>> raise can be presented in "theory", but that is ot the reality.   You are
>> writing line the TLUD "deniers" of 5 to 12 years ago.   I heard that over
>> and over.   It is in the big New Yorker magazine articles.  Those people
>> are not saying such things any more, at least not publically or where their
>> comments could leak back to me.
>>
>> Traditional stove have no such thing, because it is not batch-feeding,
>> not burning in a tight closed space. and safer in unexpected situation. it
>> is robust. that's why people prefer it over TLUD stove maybe.
>>
>> I have no clear idea yet, I just typed this message, not thinking it
>> thoroughly.
>>
>> I accept your statement that you are basically not yet well informed or
>> with much experience.   Stick with the TLUD stoves.   They are the wave of
>> the future.   They can become better, and that is where you and others will
>> eventually make important contributions.     --  And there will be many who
>> will sit on the sidelines.     ---    Progress in the past few years has
>> been great, and getting  better all the time.
>>
>> I'll sign this message to show my full bias.
>>
>> Dr TLUD
>>
>> best regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-12-02 7:50 GMT+08:00 Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Paul:
>>>
>>> Capital cost of the stove is a minor issue; the question is whether the
>>> users like and use the stove. This is why contextual definitions matter,
>>> because pellet production costs can vary greatly depending on the
>>> feedstock.
>>>
>>> A high capital cost stove can be given one-time subsidy - should be
>>> given to the distributor if one exists; could be given to a bulk producer -
>>> on the condition that the stoves are found useful and used. Metrics of
>>> efficiency and hourly emission rates are just smoke.
>>>
>>> I am glad to read "it is something about family, a cultural thing,
>>> especially in country side." Gives the lie to physics-only theories of
>>> supposed "stove science".
>>>
>>> Nikhil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cheng and all,   (and a mention of Todd Albi).     see below.
>>>>
>>>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>>>> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <%28309%29%20452-7072>
>>>> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2017 10:15 PM, lh cheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another Chinese little project. Surely, it is cookstove, not heater.
>>>> Too expensive, 1500RMB (230 USD), in rural area, a big number, very big, no
>>>> one buy, not even one, in rural area. For user, many uncertainties to use
>>>> new type of stove. if free of charge, a trustworthy friend who is an expert
>>>> about this stove, that might be fine.
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering about the price of that pellet burner stove.  Yes, it
>>>> is expensive, but expensive is a relative term.   It could be imported into
>>>> America where $230 is inexpensive, but the price here would be so much
>>>> higher and it would then be expensive here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> stove thing should be open-source ( just like Dr Anderson's Champion
>>>> Stove ), DIY, or made by acquaintance, it is something about family, a
>>>> cultural thing, especially in country side. In city, electricity or LPG is
>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any prospect in China for DIY.   And what would be the
>>>> acceptance of a stove made with thin metal?   Generalizing, it seems that
>>>> heavy construction of stoves is the standard in China.   Todd Albi might be
>>>> able to shed some light on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a good approach for stove design maybe is that, basic knowledge of
>>>> stove design spread among people, and people help each other.
>>>>
>>>> What do you have in mind?    in the context of China?   I have
>>>> difficulty imagining stove design work in China outside of the factory
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> concerning "stove intervention", during 1959-1961 in China, more than
>>>> 30 millions of people died because a stove intervention movement. and
>>>> people have memories.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide more information about this statement about 30 million
>>>> deaths.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the world of the Stoves Listserv.   We appreciate your
>>>> insights.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171203/cedce3eb/attachment.html>