[Stoves] stove

[Nikhil Desai]

Dear Frank:

Cooking IS a scientific enterprise. Individual cooks are proud, arrogant,
domineering species - the kind that every now and then, say, "Eat it if you
care, or get  out!"

>From their perspective, and in a broader sense, cooking is a scientific
exploration all life long into foods and fuels. I can boast I managed to
introduce an over-inquisitive child all topics from sciences to social
sciences and humanities, just talking in the kitchen.

But note I said it is NOT a scientist enterprise. Individual scientists are
subject to the pitfalls of scientism - namely, thinking that models are
reality, that peer approval is validation of assumptions and estimates, and
that he presumption of honesty entitles scientists to play all kinds of
ideological sports.

I have probably generated some number in the past that may well have become
a "lookup" estimate. I went through the rigors of energy statistics for
several years and used to know people in USDOE/EIA, the UN, and some
national agencies or research groups with whose help I learned to discern
the usefulness of "lookup" numbers.

I don't care about efficiency scoring and rating, so it doesn't matter to
me what the HHV and LHV numbers for fuels are this or that.

However, fuel quality (moisture, vol matter, shape, consistency) matter,
along with operating practices, when it comes to pollutant loads.
(Concentrations and exposure are another issue, depending on circulation
and mobility, and disease quite another.)

The simplistic equation of emissions with disease is not science; it is
ideology. Some emission factors are cooked up with WBT, but no emission
rates, nor any concentrations.

Do you see the conceit and deceit of so-called "science" here?

We have no idea how the "three stone fire" varies. (And yes, it does;
arrangement of bricks or shape of an in situ stove is a very important part
of an experienced cook's repertoire of skills. Over time, younger women
have sometimes lost these skills if wood fires are less and less important,
but I have observed working class women in cities and older women in
villages design the fire and arrange the wood in a way that "works" for
them. They use different fuels, different height of the stove, different
widths according to the vessel and the type of cooking.

If we understood the inherent economics of women - literate or not - we
tend to regard as ignorant, uninformed, victimized, too easily succumbing
to premature deaths from solid fuels, we might understand the economics of
cooking.

Because I think there is much more to "traditional" stoves than
inefficiency and smoke; there are "practical" adjustments to access to wood
fuels, ownership of dung, as also family size and composition, means of
employment and income, personal conditions such a pregnancies, illnesses,
aging.

Jut my hypothesis. I have no publishable proof that I can round up the
peers to sign off on. The idea simply is - as Cecil says and Crispin
emphasizes - that observing the cooks and cooking may tell us not just
about how to design a contextually relevant, usable stove or a mix of
stoves but also how much fuel they use, where they gather or buy, how they
store it, and how this might vary across customers (so we can identify
customer classes).

It is not that somehow having a survey instrument with 100 questions will
give all the information needed. This is how people who do LSMS (Living
Standards Measurement Survey) and DHS (Demographic and Health Survey) or
the professoriat think - that there must be comparable data across
different geographies. Useful for creating tables and doing regressions;
mindlessness compounded. Propagation of errors and propagation of ignorance
via cite-o-logy.

My contention has long been that such surveys yield very little useful
information about fuels and stove types,, time efficiency at various stages
of the fuel cycle, or about foods. If the villages I have seen in India
over the decades - the only environment I have a long-term perspective on -
food types and costs, dietary preferences, and relative economics of fuels
and associated stoves - keep changing. WHO type of "data" - % of households
cooking with solid fuels - don't say anything but are instead made to say
foolish generalities and subjected to computational wizardry to concoct
glorious numbers.

Is this science? I have rarely seen actual measured data on fuel types and
quantities combined with measured "useful energy". All we have is some lab
test results on a) different fuels tested on efficiency with Three Stone
Fire (but not how much of that fuel is used where and how, and b) a
"standard" fuel tested on different designs of "improved stove" (anything
other than a Three Stone Fire). [There is one exception to b) that I
recently came across and will post it].

Since data gathering - even determining what questions are contextually
relevant for what objective - is costly and takes experienced observers who
have learnt more than what academics have propounded, I can't tell how this
tragedy of scientism can be brought to an end.

I make a serious, sincere plea to you, Crispin, Cecil , Ron, and whosoever
is willing to engage: please let me know what all we "know" in quantitative
terms on efficiencies of, and emissions from, fuels and stoves in actual
use that is not dependent on WBT that is fuel-free, cook-free, facts-free?

If these claims are based on WBT, I submit it is another case of cart
before the horse, pecuniary worship of ideologies with "feel good" appeal
to the uninformed rich.

Nikhil



On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil,
>
> On 12/16/17 1:11 PM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
>
> Frank:
>
> It gets complicated, way complicated, very soon, from public policy
> perspective. Unless you narrow the inquiry down to specific location and
> period.
>
> The USCC used 'stakeholders?' to develop the test methods and
> interpretations. Regulated itself regarding certified labs. EPA required
> the heavy metals and bacteria reuirements. The labels were also regulated
> under Gov. regulations. Canada had different regulations for metals etc.
> and each State could require more stricter regulations. But the USCC  (like
> a group we could make up) ran the program.
>
> It is not often that you can control fuel quality and reliability of
> supplies. People vary crops and they also vary trees. Who collects and
> delivers what biomass is an issue of land rights; access to public trees
> for trimming, pruning, and total taking down of the tree; opportunity cost
> of labor and capital for establishing and sustaining a fuel supply
> enterprise; and, of course, sales and service network for new types of
> stoves.
>
> This was easy for the old WBT. They used a 'lookup' value for the fuel and
> this one value used for all the biomass fuels. Very easy. : )
>
> Cooking is not a scientist enterprise at all.
>
> It is if you look at it from a bigger picture.
> <snip>
>
> The challenge is not only user-centred, reiterative engineering, but
> placing it in the institutional and cultural context. Scientists, cooks,
> policymakers, lawyers, financiers all need to come together to make a
> promising project.
>
> Yes - lets do that!
>
>
> Nikhil
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:41 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Nikhil,
>
> My main issue is that we need to look at the complete picture of a
> receiving site and approach it like scientist. We will not achieve cleaner
> air, fuel savings and such until we do. We need to separate variables (as I
> have) and control them. Not as complex as it seems.
>
> On 12/14/17 5:24 PM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
>
> Frank:
>
> <snip>
> In the example below, I would add fuel chemistry; "good fuel" part is
> contextual. Say, if I were to take over the cooking market in a given
> geography completely - 100,000 stoves of various sizes and shapes replaced
> by, or supplemented by, 100,000 new ones. I am sure biomass is going to
> vary and so are stoves - in some Indian villages, one stove and fuel for
> making tea, another to cook animal feed, and a third one for heating water,
> a fourth one for daily dinners, with each of them some other use other than
> the primary ones.
>
> So, to establish market prospects in a given area, you would have to test
> maybe six kinds of fuels and four major uses to accommodate in two
> "intervention designs".
>
> I have a (starter) test package for biomass fuels. I suggest the stoves be
> sold with a description of the fuel that should be used and upper and lower
> limits. Then suggested means of delivering that fuel to combustion
> chamber.  That covers Box-1, Box-2 and the stove Box-3. Many different
> Rocket type stoves will take the same fuel. And likely the same with TLUD
> types. Then the wild biomass is collected at the receiving site and
> prepared for the stoves. It is tested to see how well it fits for the
> stove. The rest is for Cecil and like. There need be a place where the
> biomass is collected and prepared (tested) and then delivered. Nothing
> improves unless the proper fuel is used in the right stove.
>
> Most stoves that use stick fuel (rocket) or chipped fuel (TLUD) will not
> need a lot of testing. Acorns, grasses, pressed and briquets, and odd fuels
> will require more testing and, I think, this program more helpful.
>
> <snip>
>
> Then you blow me away with your view - "Whats important is what the end
> user decides important. Now all steps are controlled and should be
> repeatable."
>
> I'm thinking if fuel is optimized and delivered stacked to the user the
> user will be pleased and more likely to go along with the program
> (Cecil?).  And using the right fuel results in positive change over
> established.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> And suddenly you come up with the revolutionary advice "Because no-one
> else is doing the same system you will not be able to compare to other
> systems. But you might be able to improve your own. And there are lots of
> measurements for the fuel that can be made (not described here) but use
> simple test methods and no need for a real lab. Perhaps just some basic
> equipment."
>
> I suggest to Michael the 6-Box system. But because no one is using it his
> single point data will not be of much use. We need many tests for
> comparison and improving. I'm thinking each receiving site (village?) has
> its own fuel and own tasks to complete. If the goal is to improve a Village
> then the approach must be village wide. Help provide the people with the
> fuel and combustion chamber that will best complete the task they want
> done.
>
> To me, that is a lot better way of proving and improving a combustion
> device than to game the WBT.
>
> The WBT went from fuel to task. That is good. But the method of collecting
> and interpretating data produced was way off base IMO. A good test if
> completely redone.
>
> <snip>
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael, Stovers;
>>
>> This is a good example where the 6-Box system would be useful.
>>
>> Set up the system so it makes good tea. The process is to control the
>> variables and modify one at a time to improve the process. There are lots
>> of steps you can do but would take some time, test methods and a little
>> equipment. All simple but not good at this time. Once you have a good fuel,
>> good technique, and can produce a good cup of tea I suggest the following:
>>
>> Box-1) Observe the fuel for size, moisture, cleanliness etc.
>>
>> Box - 2: Record the process loading the combustion chamber.
>>
>> Box- 3: Record the combustion chamber; stove model etc.
>>
>> Box-4: Establish info regarding the utensils used; metal, size,
>> heavy-light etc.
>>
>> Box-5: Record the process; stirring, amount of water, amount of tea,
>> sugar added etc.
>>
>> Box-6: Determine a good repeatable Completion Point. Perhaps water just
>> starts to boil or i can hold my hand on the side of the pot for just one
>> second.
>>
>> You need to know what an improvement would look like for you. Quicker tea
>> but not care of amount of fuel. Save on fuel, walk away with less
>> manipulation, air quality, amount of char left, quality of char produced,
>> etc. Whats important is what the end user decides important.
>>
>>
>> Now all steps are controlled and should be repeatable. You can change one
>> Box at a time and see if that improves the process. Use dryer wood or stir
>> more frequently. Use a lighter pot or less water. Add wood more frequent in
>> smaller quantities - try to get the best conditions.
>>
>> Because no-one else is doing the same system you will not be able to
>> compare to other systems. But you might be able to improve your own. And
>> there are lots of measurements for the fuel that can be made (not described
>> here) but use simple test methods and no need for a real lab. Perhaps just
>> some basic equipment.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Frank Shields
> 444 Main Street Apt. 4205
> Watsonville, CA  95076
> (831) 246-0417 cellfranke at cruzio.com
>
> <franke.vcf>
>
>
> --
> Frank Shields
> 444 Main Street Apt. 4205
> Watsonville, CA  95076
> (831) 246-0417 cellfranke at cruzio.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171222/1ab3428e/attachment.html>