[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

tmiles at trmiles.com tmiles at trmiles.com
Thu Dec 21 10:21:35 CST 2017


Nikhil,

 

So what will you do with this list?  Do  you personally intend to lead an effort to change testing protocols and emissions policies? I don’t see how that is possible if you are not willing, or able, to visit the offices in Washington, DC,  New York, or conferences, committee meetings, or project sites  in Seattle, or New Delhi, and elsewhere.  

 

Tom

 

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil Desai
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:49 PM
To: Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; kgharris <kgharris at sonic.net>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Ron: 

No offense intended, but I am baffled by your defense of the WBT. What is the evidence that WBT is useful in designing a useful stove that is in fact used? 

I am grateful to Crispin for a succinct formulation:

*	Test protocols should list the measurement range and precision required to get a valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does not contain any such description that would produce results within the range required by the IWA. 
*	Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the WBT document. The method is defective on many counts – it contains approximately 75 systematic errors at present. Some are major errors and can be (but might not be) misleading.
*	I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a pre-screening method before field trials are attempted. That is nonsense. A stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain meals might perform very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the field. Numerous investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better in the field if they perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ as a rating.
*	The second thing I object to is conceptual errors embedded in the test, and the arithmetic errors, some of which are fundamental to the claims made for the results. Obviously the claims for the ‘specific fuel consumption’ are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed.

Which ones of these claims merit dismissal rather than debate? 

I for one disagree with Crispin's last point - about fuel consumption. Why shouldn't fuel left in char be given an energy credit? 

After all, it is not as if we have any service standard and gain anything by computing efficiency only for that service (namely, cooking). 

To me, that kind of efficiency calculation has no inherent merit. It is perfectly ok to tell a user, "For five kg of fuel of this type and this much MJ/kg LHV, x% will be used for boiling water under test conditions, y% for making z kg of char with this much MJ energy, and the rest of the energy is dissipated to the surroundings."

That doesn't fit in the IWA scheme of efficiency Tiers, which understandably led (or it seemed to me) Tami to raise the basic conceptual question - how does one treat efficiency in co-production (space heating, water boiling, lighting, mosquito removal, what not)?

If we had enough data to characterize the baseline stove - not just in terms of IWA metrics but some of those as found to be material to usability - we could test an "improved stove" against that baseline. 

But we have no idea of what a 3Stone Fire (TSF) does where for whom, nor whether there are varieties of TSF and what are termed as "primitive stoves". We have no data on pollutant emission factors concentrations, exposures, disease incidence. 

Nor on the varieties of solid fuels. 

To WHO, "solid fuels" are "dirty" by definition, and hourly average PM2.5 emission rates per MJ useful and per minute for Tier 4 are by definition "truly health protective". 

There is zero basis for these claims. in theory of consumer behavior, which I submit is what matters in fuel/stove choice, subject to local situation of relative fuel prices and stove prices. 

You ask "whether Crispin (and Xavier, probably Nikhil and Phillip)  think we should ignore all the additional, reported non-efficiency data that regularly comes out of the WBT.  These seem very important to many funders, so it seems to me (and Kirk and many on this list) that we must have a means of getting that non-efficiency data.  If not using something very much like the present WBT (similar duration, similar pot sizes, water quantity, etc), what do the opponents recommend?"

I have several answers to this: a) Are you in the market to please the customer so that the stoves are used with appropriate fuels and their use shows the impacts you supposedly desire or are you in the market to please funders, some of whom have been fooled by baseless promises of saving forests, climate, health, and women's chastity, regardless of whether the stove is demonstrably usable? 

b) What is the basis for IWA metrics and Tiers in terms of a historical or hypothetical future baseline? and, 

c) What is the theory of change? That some funders can be fooled again by selling avoided deforestation, avoided climate change, avoided DALYs, avoided rapes? How much money over what time period and who would sell or give away the ISO-blessed stoves where, how fast, and achieve what? 

Without a baseline and without a promised change - something I see CDM and Ci-Dev doing, without the lip service for "clean" and "health protective" - what is the relevance of TC-285 partying? 

Other notes below between ***.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> > wrote:

List:  Crispin and Kirk (authors of the several preceding notes in this thread - with a non-pertinent title)

 

My impression is that Crispin didn’t answer Kirk’s question.  I interpret Kirk to be asking whether Crispin and  others who disparage the WBT also disparage the measurements of CO2, CO and particulates that accompany the efficiency calculations.  I think Kirk is asking whether Crispin (and Xavier, probably Nikhil and Phillip)  think we should ignore all the additional, reported non-efficiency data that regularly comes out of the WBT.  These seem very important to many funders, so it seems to me (and Kirk and many on this list) that we must have a means of getting that non-efficiency data.  If not using something very much like the present WBT (similar duration, similar pot sizes, water quantity, etc), what do the opponents recommend?

 

Other notes below

 

On Dec 19, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> > wrote:

 

Dear Kirk

 

If I understand you, you want to know if I object to the WBT calling for the use of ‘sensors’ – is that correct?

 

All testing uses sensors. Why would someone object to using sensors? How else would measurements be made?

[RWL1:   And which parameters now in the WBT are to be kept or removed?  We need agreement on more than needing and using sensors.

 

*** My view: Those parameters which are valued by the user as desirable and make a reliable claim of improvement under the local conditions. *** 

 The WBT has a fixed testing sequence of power and control. It does not represent cooking anywhere in particular, though it says in the documentation that it is a proxy for cooking. “Rating stoves” using a universal test sequence of operations is nearly pointless because it cannot predict what will happen if someone uses it to cook. If the test doesn’t represent use, how can the result tell us something that will inform policy? You wouldn’t buy a child safety seat that was tested that way.

[RWL2:   Another major question: 

 Is there value in comparing different stoves in both the lab and in the field? 

 Or, 

Should we only trust answers that come from the field?


*** This begs the question of our role and the relevance of our trust. It's rather arrogant to demand to be pleased for our unsupported, untrustworthy theories at the expense of the customer. ***  

Measurements can be made using any instruments you like. Xavier tried using one instrument and didn’t like it. He is a customer and was dissatisfied. I am not.

 

You asked if he objected to making measurements is that correct? If so I find the question silly, to be frank. We all use instruments to measure performance. The instruments required to make measurements mentioned in the WBT are not part of the testing protocol, they are part of the test apparatus used when conduction the procedures listed in the protocol. Test protocols should list the measurement range and precision required to get a valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does not contain any such description that would produce results within the range required by the IWA. Writers of Standards include such a list of needed equipment so as to provide the quality of result needed. This has nothing to do with the equipment Xavier bought. It has to do with the test method and the claims which an be made for its results. Such things are normally decided at the beginning during a conceptual analysis of the purpose of the experiment and the quality of results needed.

[RWL3:  Sorry you feel Kirk asked a “silly” question.  This is my attempt to ask the same, hopefully not “silly” question, which is:  

 

 Should we be measuring, in a lab setting (with sensors more sophisticated than a clock, thermometer, and scale), CO2, CO, and particulates? 

 

 

 (and asking Kirk if this phrasing is accurate enough)





Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the WBT document. The method is defective on many counts – it contains approximately 75 systematic errors at present. Some are major errors and can be (but might not be) misleading.

[RWL4:  Where do I go to see that list of 75?  I’m especially interested in one that “can be (but might not be) misleading”



 

I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a pre-screening method before field trials are attempted. That is nonsense. A stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain meals might perform very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the field. Numerous investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better in the field if they perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ as a rating.

[RWL5:  We would all learn a great deal about this “badly..standard WBT”  vs “well in the field”.    Anyone ever seen this non-“nonsense”?



 *** Crispin may have a different view, but to me, a fuel-free, cook-free universal water boiling is prima facie irrelevant. *** 

The second thing I object to is conceptual errors embedded in the test, and the arithmetic errors, some of which are fundamental to the claims made for the results. Obviously the claims for the ‘specific fuel consumption’ are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed. 

[RWL6:  I need help on “doesn’t report on the fuel consumed”   That has been a key part of every test lab report I have ever looked at.  This seems a good time for anyone to tell us about “arithmetic errors”.



I look forward to the day when you have your stove tested using a good test method that is well grounded in science and engineering so we know what its performance actually is. It sounds really good.”.

[RWL7:  I guess it is obvious we have different opinions on whether the two labs that tested (and agreed on) several of Kirk’s (progressively improved) TLUD designs  were each using “a good method”.   Measuring the stove by Crispin’s (I think still) preferred method [of treating char as (not worth measuring) waste] doesn’t seem to me to be moving towards "a good” method.


*** Conceptually I agree with you but I don't see what this has to do with usability and use of the stove. In certain contexts, if the extra time and fuel spent on making char is attractive to the user, who can stop him/her. (I would even ignore the question of whether s/he uses the stove for cooking at all, and only uses it for char-making. It's not as if we have a service standard for cooking or a lab test simulating cooking. We have no theory of cookstoves except promising the moon to donors too eager to throw money, and throw stoves at the poor.)  ***

 

Ron

 

ps:  Still hoping for someone to comment on whether last week’s AGU report on health impacts of smoke from forest fires has any relation to stove health impacts (CO and particulates being apparently quite similar).  To me, this is a strong endorsement of WHO reports on health that at least some stove buyers want.


*** What's the point of commenting on "preliminary findings" without a description of the data and methods? See https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/253622. All they say is that "Results show that although total PM2.5 concentrations in the US are projected to be similar in 2100 as in 2000, the dominant source of PM2.5 will change. Under the RCP8.5 climate projection and SSP3 population projection, non-fire emissions (mostly anthropogenic) are projected to decrease, but PM2.5 from CONUS and non-US wildfires is projected to increase from approximately 20% of all PM2.5 in 2000 to 80% of all PM2.5 in 2100. Furthermore, although the US population is expected to decline between 2000 and 2100, the mortality attributable to wildfire smoke is expected to increase from ~25,000 deaths per year in 2000 to ~75,000 deaths per year in 2100."That is , another round of gaming without data. Since it is the composition of PM2.5 that is supposed to change, the blae has to be put on wildfires. WHO blather on HAP DALYs has no data, leave aside their realism.  Just remember attribution is not causation, and one-way causation does not imply reverse causation. There is no empirical bases for HAP emission rates, emission loads, concentrations, exposures, and disease incidence. The IER is funky, to boot. Attributiability is not avoidability, and I see no benefit in taking these models and these experts seriously. Academics do many things not worth serious attention. *** 


  
>
>  
> Regards

Crispin

.

 

 

From: Stoves [ <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kirk H.
Sent: 20-Dec-17 02:18
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves < <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Crispin, 

 

The fact that you did not mention sensors is the problem because sensors were in my question. 

Since your response did not answer my question but rather pushed your anti-WBT agenda, I had no choice but to guess.  I did not impute disagreements, I could only guess that your disagreement extended to the sensors and filters.  If they did not then you should have made that clear in your response instead of pushing your agenda.  I quite clearly asked if the CCT is included in the disagreement.  No answer in your response.  I could only make guesses, because your response was so far off from answering my question.  All I wanted was for my question to be answered.

 

Aside from this, thank you for answering my question in this last contribution.  No you do not include the sensors and filters in the disagreement.  I can now feel comfortable that the CO, CO2, and particulate results are not in dispute.

 

When will these other better tests be available for me to use?

 

Kirk H.

 

 

Sent from  <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C95dc052b6f294156f64c08d5471e164a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493116906531727&sdata=FDOp6JcxcaiL9%2BB%2F5Vi7MO48xO9gNr1m4sho09OpP%2BU%3D&reserved=0> Mail for Windows 10

 

From:  <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:39 AM
To:  <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Dear Kirk

 

I made no mention at all of sensors or quality of equipment, which is not specified in the WBT. I think it is not helpful for you or Ron or anyone to impute disagreements where there are none. The WBT is a test protocol that includes a test method and  a set of calculations. What it your point is saying ‘it includes the CCT’ because it doesn’t exclude it? Seriously: what is your theory of change? Shooting messengers, even hosts of them, does not change the message.

 

Conceptually there is nothing wrote with heating or boiling water. If you want really accurate results, heat water, don’t boil it – a point repeatedly emphasized by Prof Lloyd. There is a paper called “From Water Boiling Test to Water Heating Test” which explores this, (From WBT to WHT, it is called).

 

If you want even more accurate assessments of your product, use formulas that are derived from first principles. That exercise has  been done very by the SeTAR Centre and is why the HPT was created – as a way of avoiding all the historical errors that have accumulated in the WBT.  I mentioned the LVH error in the list of woods at the back of the spreadsheet. That error was identified in 1987 by Sam Baldwin, someone highly praised in certain circles. Yet after 30 year (!) it has still not been corrected by Shell, Berkeley, Aprovecho, Tami Bond and ETHOS nor the EPA and GACC.

 

How long should we wait for something as simple as a an error in the LHV from HHV calculation to be implemented? Do you agree 30 years is a bit excessive (and still not corrected) is a bit excessive?

 

Why should anyone take seriously the system of informal management of its “main messenger” that cannot gets its technical house in order? I don’t. Neither does Xavier. Not Jiddu. Nor the Indian government nor the Chinese government nor many others. 

 

Regards

Crispin

 

 

 

 

From: Stoves [ <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kirk H.
Sent: 19-Dec-17 12:25
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves < <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Thank you for your response.  My question was if the disagreement was with all parts of the test or just the water boiling part.  I guess your answer means that the disagreement is with all parts of the test including the CO sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate sensors and the weighing of the filters, as well as the water boiling portion.  When you say WBT, you mean all of this, not just the water boiling in the pot.  I also assume that the CCT is included in this, since your response did not exclude it.  But since I have nothing else available for my use I will continue as is.

 

I was using my stove to compare only because it and the fuel were constant between Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not to flaunt it as a clean stove.  Sorry about the misunderstanding. 

 

Kirk H.

 

Sent from  <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C508e7c300ead46b2ea9808d546a9a7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492616834369342&sdata=NaGH3iFpwknHhuDte1RIdz%2FvvVkaWq9mKs1HvZl20jo%3D&reserved=0> Mail for Windows 10

 

From:  <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM
To:  <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> Stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Dear Kirk

 

No thinks your stove isn't 'clean and efficient'.‎ In truth we don't know what the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets for it are not available from Aprovecho (so you said when I asked) and LBNL not only doesn't share the spreadsheet behind the performance claims, they do their own evaluation using their own method (I wrote to them and asked specifically about your stove).

 

In the real world. This is simply unacceptable. We do not accept anyone's performance rating for which we do know know the method and calculations. 

 

Similarly, the calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in accordance with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of any stove test to see). 

 

The ratings provided by LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual performance on the WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I have no need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the cooking cycle or the calculations OD the WBT. 

 

I do know that both those labs report using IWA metrics without any caution that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered is of questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer of the information is left with the impression that the numbers are meaningful which they may not be. To me that is at least, deceptive because both labs ae aware of the controversy and implications for the product ratings. 

 

It is telling that students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in view of the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed.  

 

The WBT should be eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable in the strictest sense of the word. 

 

Regards 

Crispin 

 

 

Xavier,

 

I am surprised to read that you don’t know whether you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the water boiling portion of the test.  I did not specify Aprovecho’s equipment in my question.  I tested the same stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very clean stove.  Does the disagreement include Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water portion of the test?  What exactly do those who disagree with the WBT, disagree with, just the water boiling portion of the test or the overall test?  Is the Controlled Cooking portion of the test also included in this disagreement?

 

Kirk H.

 

Sent from  <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0> Mail for Windows 10

 

From:  <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com> Xavier Brandao
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM
To:  <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

 

Dear Kirk,

 

“Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water?“

I don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the measurements from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.

Other than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at Prakti, and I believe there are other cases where it happened.


Best,

 

Xavier

 

De : Stoves [ <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Kirk H.
Envoyé : samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55
À : Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China andcookstoves]

 

I have a question.

 

When I test a stove I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along with the pot of water.  Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water?  The water boiling portion of the overall test appears to attract your attention.  How much of the overall test do you disagree with?  What do you mean when you disagree with the WBT, are you including the sensors, computer graphs and filters?

 

Kirk H.

 

Sent from  <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0> Mail for Windows 10

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171221/4b8b1173/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list