[Stoves] ETHOS vote on lab testing of performance metrics (Re: Ron)

[Traveller]

Ron:

What a delight - to get a poll from ETHOS folks whom you call "lab
fanatics". (I didn't, in case list members get a different idea.)

Do us all a favor and

a) Report to the list which ETHOS participants did which stove tests in the
field that informed the WHO "emissions database" that you seem to know so
much and are so passionate about (without which the GBD claims fall flat
and so do WHO IAQ Guidelines).

b) Take a poll of the first 30 folks who have done the following:  used the
WBT of IWA version over the last five years to perform field tests for
"baseline" and "improved" biomass (excl. charcoal) stoves in at least five
different locations, for at least two weeks at a time and at least six
months apart, and covering at least 100 household users for fuel
consumption and PM2.5 emission rates.  Ask them what the value of this WBT
protocol is, whether they considered any adjustments or also used another
test method. I assume they would all have had lab tests in the first place.

If you can do (b), ETHOS folks are not "lab fanatics". Whatever their
verdict on lab tests of these performance metrics, let it stand. It's not
as if anybody gave ETHOS the remit to rule the world of cooking and run
roughshod on cooks and cook designers. Their ethos is admirable but the
pathos is sad.

And if you cannot find such 30 people, I call all of them to endorse
Xavier's advocacy appeal to GACC.

Mind you, my call to drop fuel consumption and emission rate testing in
labs is different from Xavier's.  I merely hold that performance metrics
should be set "contextually" -- after all, there is no point in saving
"free fuel" and what you so passionately call "renewable biomass". And
there is also no point in reducing emission rates for some arbitrary period
to some awfully low levels if there is enough ventilation, the fuel is
relatively high quality, ambient air quality is good, and combustion
conditions are "right".

Xavier asked how much time and money has been wasted on dead-end stoves
just because the performance metrics were tested in lab and failed the test
of reproducibility and, what is worse, failed the customers (the funders of
tests as well as the cooks we all pretend to hold so dear to our hearts).

Abuse of science in the name of the poor is offensive. Leave GACC to do
gassing, and stop lab fanaticism.

Nikhil




---------
(India +91) 909 995 2080

>
> Frank
>
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:13 PM, rongretlarson at comcast.net wrote:
>
> List,  cc Nikhil
>
>     I submit this is both a first for this list and a best explanation of
> Nikhil's stove outlook:
>
> "*Another reason the good old performance metrics of fuel consumption and
> emission rates need to be junked. What matters is how the stoves are used
> in practice, not what some fanatics come up with in labs. "*
>
>      Who agrees with Nikhil?   I'll report (possibly tomorrow) from ETHOS
> on the views there of the "lab fanatics"
>
> Ron
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Traveller" <miata98 at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Frans Peeters" <peetersfrans at telenet.be>
> *Cc: *"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:32:07 PM
> *Subject: *[Stoves] Steam cooking (Re: Frans)
>
> Frans:
>
> Thank you for bringing up steam cooking. Is "ambient steam cooking"
> different from "pressure steam cooking"?
>
> Liquid/gas fuel stoves with pressure cookers transformed the lives of
> about a billion cooks so far.
>
> I cannot say the same of biomass household stoves, but it should be
> possible.
>
> I find your "1 kg wood = 4 kWh" incomprehensible. That's just energy
> content. Delivered to pot, who knows?
>
> I think the bigger point is, even a biomass stove that facilitates use of
> pressure cookers makes a huge difference in time and energy spent.
>
> Another reason the good old performance metrics of fuel consumption and
> emission rates need to be junked. What matters is how the stoves are used
> in practice, not what some fanatics come up with in labs.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170127/67c5e854/attachment.html>