[Stoves] New Year Physics and Chemistry? (Re: Frank)

[Traveller]

Frank:

Thank you so much for positive thoughts. Yes, even I hope this year cooking
and nutrition come to stoves work instead of efficiency and "clean"
charade.

I will detail and defend that some other time; for now, a response to your
thoughts:

"Researches (sic) and scientists should, once again, bow down in shame."

*** Why? Not when they are doing science. The science may not be useful for
design and promotion of solid fuel combustion appliances, but that is not
the fault of science.

The error lies in abusing science and converting into propaganda to push
for budgetary and policy interests, ignoring all the cautions and
qualifications that scientists do, in fact, note in their work. ***

"It seems that stoves have not yet met the clean air and efficiency desired
from health workers."

*** I doubt that is the case. No "health worker" desires efficiency per se;
and as far as "clean air" goes, it is all the air that a person breathes,
and public health or environment bureaucracies of the world have been
struggling with that for 60+ years, primarily in urban areas, no fault of
"stoves" as such. In fact, it is ludicrous to obsess over pollution from
household use of solid fuels; there are many other combustion devices using
solid fuels and not all of them are as polluting. More importantly, it is
not emissions but exposures that matter, and the whole WHO "database" is
not from primary measurements but model estimates with unverifiable - leave
alone unverified - assumptions.

WHO has no business setting presumptuous IAQ guidelines (not that its
ambient air guidelines are worth beans, until governments have air
pollution control strategies), and its meddling in emission rates is doing
worthless science.

Now, am I presumptuous to challenge presumptuous WHO or what? :-) ***

****

"controlling the fuel variable is the ONLY next step."

*** I agree. I once studied biomass power and co-firing of coal and biomass
in US power plants. Physical properties of solid biomass do matter. (There
was a "Whole Tree" power concept and of course, energy grasses.)

So they do with small appliances for direct heat. I agree with you about
the need for "fuel preparation". ****

"The lab needs to have the ability to test (a) biomass, (b) combustion
process (c) air quality and (d) cooking tasks."

*** But this is where Cecil/ESMAP concept of "contextuality" comes in.
There is no standard cooking (or water/space heating). With gas and
electricity, it is the controls that make it easier to adapt them to a wide
variety of cooking tasks (though not all, one of the reasons for stacking).
Biomasses differ, combustion processes differ, air quality differs and
cooking tasks differ. ***

"That means to chop, split, crush, chip, dry, press, etc so all biomass
used is uniform in chemical and physical properties. Developing equipment
to do this will likely be the next project for designers and manufacturing."

*** I broadly agree with that, with the caveat of "contextuality". Not all
solid biomass or coal need be uniform in chemical and physical properties,
nor do these properties need to be standardized. This is where the real
challenge comes in. There is very little information on fuel chemistry or
agrochemistry in the "cookstoves" literature; I cannot readily recall any
study that had fuel chemistry for biomass.

Within a region ("geographic market", in anti-trust literature), biomass
may vary quite a lot. Few places have uniform "energy trees" except for
charcoal. Coal tends to be more uniform within a region, at least in
chemical terms; its physical form can be adapted to specific uses.

The IHME "public health" work is a mockery of chemistry. But I have already
said that, haven't I? :-)

We need good, true scientists of the home environment. A stove is not just
a firebox. A kitchen - if one exists - is not a breathbox. A meal is not a
uniform mush; its physical and chemical properties - in particular, smell -
matter. ***


Nikhil




On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:

> Greetings Stovers,
>
> Reflecting into the New Year…..
>
> Stove designers and producers should, once again, pat themselves on the
> back.
> Researches and scientists should, once again, bow down in shame.
>
> It seems that stoves have not yet met the clean air and efficiency desired
> from health workers. To continue working on cleaner air we need to look at
> controlling the next limiting variable. After that is controlled there will
> be another limiting variable and another - always another until the task is
> done and air is clean and healthy.
>
> The limiting factor is (Box 1 of six) the fuel (broken record here : ) ).
> We all know that because thats why we use regulated pellets and dried cut
> lumber in testing. In cases where wild wood is used it means nothing
> because we have not tested and listed the chemical and physical parameters.
> We do not know anything about the fuel or the limitations on the fuel for
> the stove being used.
>
> I do not know if all the research studying wild biomass and determining
> limitations on stoves will result in improved performance and cleaner air
> BUT I do know that if we ever plan to get cleaner air that controlling the
> fuel variable is the ONLY next step.
>
> I have worked at the bench for over forty years and have lots of ideas on
> what is needed and test methods to determine them. Any lab that can
> re-direct some of the wasted millions to a risky project of testing biomass
> and stove limitations and would like my 2 cents - I would be glad to help.
> The lab needs to have the ability to test (a) biomass, (b) combustion
> process (c) air quality and (d) cooking tasks.
>
> Whatever the results the local wild biomass will need be prepared for the
> stove based on findings. That means to chop, split, crush, chip, dry,
> press, etc so all biomass used is uniform in chemical and physical
> properties. Developing equipment to do this will likely be the next project
> for designers and manufacturing.
>
> Looks like it could be a busy year - I hope!
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
>
> franke at cruzio.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170102/b1ebe70c/attachment.html>