[Stoves] Work for 2018

Frank Shields franke at cruzio.com
Sat Oct 28 01:19:35 CDT 2017


> On Oct 27, 2017, at 10:10 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Frank: 
> 
> Delighted to read -
> 
>  "Us laboratory stuff people don’t care if the stove pollutes, does or doesn’t cook, what is the best fuel or if the stove easily tips over. We just make measurements and send them out in a report. "
> 
> It is a succinct version of an argument I am developing against GACC, WHO hoopla about TC-285. Stay tuned.
> 
> " We need money to set up test procedures and research the process of taking measurements that pertain to the qualities YOU think important. "
> 
> That is the spirit of testing. In the case under consideration, EPA has intended to impose what IT thinks is important upon the wishes of a billion cooks worldwide. Why do you think I call it the Empire Promotion Apparatus? 


We will continue to go nowhere (as we have for the past ten years) until we approach this like scientist - control the variables. Without the fuel being controlled all values are meaningless. EPA should know this. Everyone should know this. We scientist have this brass ring in our noses and have been lead around in circles by someone with a long stick going nowhere - WHY?



> 
> "There is a problem with this. You end up not having a great choice fuel/stove combinations to pick and will not know the best one(s) until after a great deal of time and money is spent doing ‘field research’ if I understand what you are saying. But that is the only way it can be done at the moment because that list is non existent. AND you cannot state service standards, efficiency standards nor maximum pollution because we have nothing to pick from, we have not controlled all the variables and it may not even be possible to meet these with whats available on site. What are you going to say - no one can cook food today because the stoves are not up to standard? HaHa  You will have a better chance to meet your standards with a long list of possible stoves to pick from and the requirement for fuel these stoves use. Better would be for you to require the fuel used in stoves to be properly prepared for that stove.  We will give you that list of fuel qualities for you to use for a stove type once we determine them based on best performance. You determine if ‘Best’ is good enough. "
> 
> It is not that we have nothing to pick from. Small steps can be generated from using food service establishments, experienced cooks for particular regions. It's just that the priests of "clean fuels" haven't bothered to look for relevant variables, instead looking to cook up model estimates based on assumptions based on model estimates.. There is nothing there, I grant you. But the reality of cooking is hard facts for those who have open eyes and open minds. 

You have nothing to pick from! You should have hundreds to pick from and you might take a look at the ones you have to pick from and see who makes them available. Are they part of the reason competition is kept out? We ned the best stoves being used and a great stove here should be able to be seen and chosen on the other side of the World. A new idea for a new stove should be able to tested in a lab and placed in the appropriate list for people to look at. Thats the way it was in the old WBT days (or supposed to be). Something is going on. Money is being diverted from stoves to determining if people breathing in smoky air has more illness and dies early than people breathing in fresh mountain air. Really!?  People making stoves cannot compete with the established stove makers. People are keeping the system locked up. No lab competition, no stove completion and keep the money re-directed to keep all the same - I am thinking. 





> 
> It is not I who says "no one cook food today because the stoves are not up to standard." It is Kirk Smith who says "thou shalt not cook with any but a truly health protective stove as I define them to be." If this kind of health fascism - dictated via WHO's top Tier PM2l5 Emission Rate Target as mcg/min and mcg/MJd - that is standing in the way of judging just what to do when we don't know what all the cook desires and how s/he intends to use the stove. 
> 
> Pretensions to the contrary, there is no "science" of "implementation" of stove programs. Judgment is not a particularly scientific model. 
> 
> I concede in part. Maybe "start with the cook" is not a good enough start. All contextual variables need to come into play, and only an anthropologist - an ethnographer, a cook who has cooked many cuisines with wide variety of ingredients and has known how and in what form the ingredients can be obtained, a comparative historian and geographer perhaps -- maybe that's the kind of skill that needs to be brought to the table to answer the question - What all could this cook possibly want in the next ten years and what would she be willing to put up with? 
> 
> To hold that efficiency and CO, PM2.5 emission rates is what the cook wants is simply a non-starter. But that is what EPA cabal is up to. 
> 
Before getting into this contextual science (is that a Feel Good science?) there need be some tools to work with and choices from real science. You don’t yet seem to realize that you need real science before we make any progress. Even after ten years of no progress. Lots of attempts but always back where we started from. Because we don’t have a base to start from. Others realize it and are keeping us busy to keep it from happening. 

Perhaps the Pellet Industry will agree to include adding measurements used for TLUDs and our other small stoves. Add it to their working program. A few tests added to their list may be all thats needed regarding the fuel. Then we need the Tasks the stoves are designed to do.   


Regards

Frank




> Nikhil 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
> Dear Nikhil,
> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> Who are these "international standards" of TC-285 meant to be applied to and what is sought to be controlled? It cannot be fuel efficiency, because there is an economic trade-off; people may buy cheaper fuels or cheaper stoves (like cars). Nor deforestation because wood has multiple uses and can be grown somewhere or the other. Nor exposure to disease-causing pollutants because such pollutants arise from many sources other than cooking fuel/stove. 
> This is where I think you get confused. There is laboratory stuff and out-in-the World stuff. You mix the two. Us laboratory stuff people don’t care if the stove pollutes, does or doesn’t cook, what is the best fuel or if the stove easily tips over. We just make measurements and send them out in a report. The measurements can be used by you to compare one stove to another or to set standards, make purchases etc. The problem has been is that we have not been allowed to do our job. We need money to set up test procedures and research the process of taking measurements that pertain to the qualities YOU think important. 
>> I am inclined to the view, “Start with the cook, and optimize fuel/stove to a service standard with some minimum efficiency rating and maximum pollutant emission rating."
>> 
> There is a problem with this. You end up not having a great choice fuel/stove combinations to pick and will not know the best one(s) until after a great deal of time and money is spent doing ‘field research’ if I understand what you are saying. But that is the only way it can be done at the moment because that list is non existent. AND you cannot state service standards, efficiency standards nor maximum pollution because we have nothing to pick from, we have not controlled all the variables and it may not even be possible to meet these with whats available on site. What are you going to say - no one can cook food today because the stoves are not up to standard? HaHa  You will have a better chance to meet your standards with a long list of possible stoves to pick from and the requirement for fuel these stoves use. Better would be for you to require the fuel used in stoves to be properly prepared for that stove.  We will give you that list of fuel qualities for you to use for a stove type once we determine them based on best performance. You determine if ‘Best’ is good enough. 
> 
>> Unless one is prepared to issue cooking licenses like driving licenses and ticket people for "stacking", deforestation. Or impose a Black Carbon tax. 
> 
> Just require the properly prepared fuel be used for the stove chosen. 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Frank
> 
>>>  
> 
> 
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane <https://maps.google.com/?q=1091+Madison+LaneSalinas,+CA+%C2%A093907+(831&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Salinas, CA  <https://maps.google.com/?q=1091+Madison+LaneSalinas,+CA+%C2%A093907+(831&entry=gmail&source=g> 93907 <https://maps.google.com/?q=1091+Madison+LaneSalinas,+CA+%C2%A093907+(831&entry=gmail&source=g>
> (831) 246-0417 <tel:(831)%20246-0417> cell
> (831) 771-0126 <tel:(831)%20771-0126> office
> 
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks

Frank

Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office

franke at cruzio.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171027/3382b423/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list