[Stoves] Chinese testing and Chinese stoves (was Re: "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement")

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Tue Dec 19 14:30:46 CST 2017


I thank Crispin for writing:
> The Chinese test is very simple and contains only one mathematical 
> error (double counting the energy gained by the pot between 95 and 100 
> C). 
Maybe more comments about that.  I saw their formula, and the word 
"simple" did not come to mind.

> [Compared to other tests], the Chinese test which consistently 
> produced higher values across the board. We find this very 
> interesting. The Chinese test is intended for high mass stoves – 
> certainly higher than the WBT’s typical targets which in China are 
> called ‘Picnic Stoves’. The impact of the high mass is reflected in 
> the Chinese result which credits simmering without no fire.
INTENDED FOR HIGH MASS STOVES.   This is another likely reason why the 
Chinese research on a TLUD stove with pellets gave such LOW (not high) 
results on efficiency.

VAST differences when stove types can be called "picnic stoves" (I 
really link that descriptor) and "(pick your descriptor that means 
heavy, not-portable, build-in-with-chimney, dual purpose 
heating-and-cooking, multi-hour-operational, and comparatively 
expensive) stoves."   BOTH types have their places.  A tack-hammer and a 
mallet and a sledge hammer are really the same in function (to hit 
things), but testing them probably should be differently appropriate for 
each type.

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

On 12/17/2017 1:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Nikhil
>
> In answer to questions below and earlier questions you posed about the 
> WBT’s ethnicity:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Who was harmed by the WBT? The entire cooking stove industry. Every 
> donor, every stove recipient. Through ignorance or design, the WBT has 
> been impressed upon the stove programmes outside China and India. 
> India’s test is hardly better: though it does a creditable job on the 
> cooking efficiency metric, it is worse on contextuality (because of 
> the fuel and fueling procedure used). The Chinese test is very simple 
> and contains only one mathematical error (double counting the energy 
> gained by the pot between 95 and 100 C).
>
> Several papers from the China Agricultural University’s Renewable 
> Energy Research group in the College of Engineering have been written 
> comparing the results obtained by test methods from India, China, 
> Cambodia, South Africa and the WBT.  Once corrections for different 
> conceptual errors were made, the methods of calculating the fuel 
> efficiency were in significant agreement, save for the Chinese test 
> which consistently produced higher values across the board. We find 
> this very interesting. The Chinese test is intended for high mass 
> stoves – certainly higher than the WBT’s typical targets which in 
> China are called ‘Picnic Stoves’. The impact of the high mass is 
> reflected in the Chinese result which credits simmering without no fire.
>
>
> It may well be that with other test protocols we might get more 
> reliable efficiency estimates, I don't know about PM2.5 estimates - or 
> whether the WHO Tier 4 target set with a fatally flawed test method 
> and seriously compromised "single box" air circulation model can be 
> met at all.  Shouldn't we worry about exposures rather than hourly 
> average emission rates?  As soon as one accepts that is the real 
> problem to quantify, the stove test is distinct from it.
>
<snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171219/92f151b3/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list