[Stoves] A user-centered, iterative engineering approach for advanced biomass cookstove design and development

[Nikhil Desai]

Paul:

It's not worth getting excited over this paper, though I explain below I
wholeheartedly commend the authors what ought to have been Stoves Lesson 1
forty years ago. (They even refer to Manibog 1984, which started me off on
formal research in stoves.)

I note

"The existing available semi-gasifier biomass cookstoves all lacked
user-desired functions such as auto-ignition and flame adjustment. Field
visits to homes near Beijing revealed that most homes with semi-gasifier
stoves had suspended use due to breakage or difficulty using them for
cooking. We identified several design features that led to frequent
breakage, namely cracking of the inner combustion chamber wall and stove
grate blockage from slag that formed due to high temperature combustion and
inefficient ash removal. In addition, most semi-gasifer cookstoves required
fuel loading from the top, a feature that made it impossible to add fuel
during cooking and, according to stove users, greatly limited its
functionality to meet daily cooking needs."


Is it enough to say "Decades of disappointing stove intervention programs
highlight the need for new approaches and development efforts"? Based on a
study of 16 homes over a few weeks in summer-time with "structured and
semi-structured interviews with primary cooks at 2 d and 6 weeks
post-installation of the prototype stoves"?

The conclusion "Our proposed design strategy can be applied to other stove
development initiatives in China and other countries." should be read in
combination with "The unique features of the particular semi-gasifier,
biomass cookstove discussed here need not be directly transferable to other
regions in China. Rather, the user-centered, iterative engineering design
process presented could be replicated in other provinces and regions to
identify optimal stove design that is responsive to the local context."

Still, the most relevant observation - which need not have required this
study - is simply this:

" Stove designs (Tryner et al 2014 and 2016) that over-emphasize technical
performance early in the stove development process limit the extent to
which user input obtained later in the process—if sought—can lead to stove
design modification. The user-centered and iterative engineering design
approach we present prioritized local users’ preferences and aspirations,
and sought to combine user input with high technical performance. Our
results suggest that valuable engineering insights are gained in the early
stages of stove design through targeted field-based data collection that
yield information unattainable in the laboratory."


Which is why the WHO/ISO TC-285 exercise is so immature, it needs to be
aborted.

I wonder who would digest and apply this lesson of user-centered iterative
engineering method. I suspect you have, and perhaps others can claim such a
trail of experience instead of just reporting WBT-based performance metrics
as in the BAMG Catalog of stoves for GACC.

I am afraid this paper might end up like Manibog's and various other stove
evaluation reports that have repeatedly said, essentially, "User matters."
It is only after determining the service standard (cooking and other tasks
desired by the user) and the objective of an intervention (not necessarily
limited to the efficiency and pollutant emissions, and in some contexts not
even these) that a stove designer can go about designing a product.

Large programs of such research, guided by competent and unbiased
proponents., ought to have been generated when GACC began. It is still not
too late; GACC just needs to be placed in a proper home, independent of its
US masters.

Nikhil



On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Not correct.   The stove type was not TLUD.  It was essentially a
> trickle-feed forced air pellet heater (as in the home heating units) but
> made at the size of a cooking stove.   Nice work, but not a TLUD and no
> real chance to make charcoal because the pellets are burned to ash under
> the streams of forced air.   It might become very successful.   Good
> approach to designing changes.  But also heavy and expensive compared to
> the TLUD stoves that are currently having great success in West Bengal.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171129/ae10acde/attachment.html>