[Stoves] Test procedures

Sun Jan 15 18:35:12 CST 2017

Dear Frank

This is how it should be done, as explained by Harold Annegarn:

‎Define the required output, the units and the accuracy needed. Define an acceptable range of error.

Working backwards from the result through the formulas needed, define the measurements needed, their accuracy and precision.

Describe the equipment needed to obtain those measurements and the conditions under which ‎they shall be obtained.

The rest falls together. Terms needed are defined, and no term goes undefined.

The result is a list of required measurements with defined parameters that can be used to select equipment.

The testing of stoves requires the defining of a test sequence to be conducted during the measurement process. That might be a very simple test of heat transfer efficiency of a complex series of tests reflecting in-home use with fuel saved from one test to the next. ‎It might simulate the preparation of a complx meal of a heating cycle in winter.

Fuel characterization is ‎well defined. In some cases the char produced should be characterized. There are common methods of doing that.

The key of course is to have at the end a report that has relevance and certainty.

Regards
Crispin

Dear Crispin,

One such group I was involved in was the IBI Carbon Sequestering protocol. That was very successful IMO. So it can work.

While one person can come up with a test, it is quite another thing to come up with an entire protocol.

There are books of test methods to pick from. They are assembled to make a protocol. Then the results have a conclusion assigned to them.

Its the ‘conclusion assigned to them’ where it all starts. The test methods often need to be modified and the assembling of them needs to be such that it validates the ‘conclusion assigned to them’. Many test procedures fall short along the way and their conclusion claims are not substantiated. Experts not having lab experience are unlikely to willingly modify test methods. And the protocol often not conducted to validate the conclusion. I see this a lot.

Its easy to see why stove tests done in the lab using processed fuels for a conclusion that this stove is better than this stove is not a valid test protocol when its wild fuel that is used at the site.

Its easy to see why it would be useful to have a lab test where many stoves can be tested to determine the best stove for a specific site. I think this can be done. But I have not a hint of anyone working towards this approach.

Regards

Frank

On Jan 15, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:

Dear Frank

I tend to agree as a knee-jerk response, however the development over the past 4 years of the BST Lab test for biomass fired cooking stoves is a good example of group collaboration for a very high quality product. This is a project of S4G (the South-South Sustainable Stoves Group), a collaboration by experts from more than 10 developing countries each of which contributes expertise.

The major difference one sees working with this group is the lack of adherence to old paradigms, and the concentration on the latest science and conceptual frameworks. At present the whole test protocol is less than 20 pages long and provides an easy to follow set of procedures with valid, meaningful metrics. I hope it will be generally available this calendar year.

While one person can come up with a test, it is quite another thing to come up with an entire protocol. That is why National Standards are written by a team, and reviewed by another team. And when that is all done, it is still published for public comment for 60 days to get reviews by external parties. The IWA 2012:11 calls for all stove test methods to be expertly reviewed (and ‘pass’) by external parties. So far as I hear, only one has been which is the HPT from the SeTAR Centre (multiple times – four that I know of).

You would be surprised what other expert eyes can see when it comes to conceptual overviews. We are always updating as things come to light. The point is to be able to make a valid prediction of future performance, the same as certifying a bridge load capacity or a car’s fuel efficiency.

We can always be inspired by the success of the Spitfire which was pretty much designed by one guy, or the F104 fighter jet which was designed by Kelly in a very short time.

Regards
Crispin

Stovers,

From my experience (USCC, ACP, IBI, etc.) working in groups to come up with test methods the approach used is wrong and reason nothing gets done. Grouping experts, each with their own idea, together to come up with the best does not work.  A better way is to let each person/group  develop their own idea. Then a presentation of the ideas presented for one to be picked.

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com<mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>

franke at cruzio.com<mailto:franke at cruzio.com>

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com<mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>

franke at cruzio.com<mailto:franke at cruzio.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170116/6b3f77fa/attachment.html>