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

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

The product is called 'Micro-PEMS' and measures concentrations.

It is a technicality sophisticated device. Surprisingly so.  They are rented and the users are not able to process the data themselves.

Regards
Crispin


Crispin:

You probably have no data on "chronic under-heating", but that's ok. We know how poor people cope with winters. (Here in Washington, they sleep on the grates of the Capital heat network, a few blocks away from the White House, for example).

PEMS measure emissions, not concentrations and certainly not exposures. Personal monitors record concentrations, a proxy for ingestion.

If you are able to - or unable to - model emission rates into concentrations, tell that please to WHO and TC-285. They should immediately back off from their emission-air circulation rigmarole.

Which means, in turn, find a more suitable metric for air pollution than PM2.5 per minute and per MJ. That is what EPA did with residential wood heaters in the US, with a different protocol and certification criteria, and the story is not one of glorious success.

Good luck! Keep innovating, adjusting, and make a case for applied R&D including market data and customer data collected in a sensible way, not the average "household energy surveys" or "rural energy surveys". (My friends did some, and I was always dismissive of those findings.)

Nikhil


On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
Dear Nikhil

I was typing 'chronic under-heating' and swiped the touch keyboard left which erases the ‎last word. I am using a Passport. Worse than auto-correct I suppose.

The measurements were made with a Micro-PEMS from the only source of them. Measurements made by Fresh Air, analysis by the equipment providers. I have raw data. It is hard to extract.

The personal monitors were worn so it is a measure of what they experience, though CO was ambient in the home. There was a huge difference with the improved stoves. More than 100 ppm was common in the control homes and the 'before' measurements. The 'after' showed a consistent 1 ppm in nearly all cases all the time. One 'before' day a home was above 100 for 24 hrs.

Temperatures were measured about every two hours all winter, except at night, and all fuel was weighed. Forty % more heat from 40% less fuel, for the coal stoves. Climate freaks should be buying these things and handing them out like popcorn. 40% reduction!

I heard today of a few private sales of the model KG4.3 being ordered, sales that are taking place ‎outside the project. Reports are very positive. Today we took delivery of the wooden pattern for the top deck.

We are preparing for a major expansion for three models. First, 1000 then another 13,000. It is about $300k. Must check the pattern carefully. Measure three times, cast once.

Regards
Crispin




Crispin:

Something got frozen in Almaty winter: a word is missing here -

"The health impact of chronic seems to far outweigh the negative health effects of PM2.5, though that impact was pretty obvious as well."

Folklore has it that men and boys handle heating stoves and fireplaces, chimneys much more than do women and girls.

How were  you able to separate exposures from so-called HAP from exposures to other sources of pollutants in and outside homes? Or are you comparing the change - showing that the reduction in exposures was greater for men and boys so t hat, all else being equal, they must have had a higher exposure to begin with?

Also, remind me - what was the measure of exposures? Dosimetry?

Nikhil


On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
Dear N and P

One of the most interesting things to come out of the winter-long monitoring of IAQ, personal exposure, temperature and health in the Kyrgyzstan Pilot was the big difference (service factor) provided by a stove that used less fuel and kept the room 5 degrees C warmer.

The health impact of chronic seems to far outweigh the negative health effects of PM2.5, though that impact was pretty obvious as well.

I was in a meeting today and when it came to the negative health impacts of stoves someone chimed in with the obligatory 'especially it's affects on women and children. So it is worth noting that in rural poor families in Kyrgyzstan the men turned out to have higher smoke exposure than women or children.

My first maxim, as my students know, is "Never assume anything'.

Don't claim what was not measured. I wonder how fast we can hold to that standard.

Regards
Crispin in solitude in Almaty


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171220/c5ab0d6d/attachment.html>