[Stoves] Work for 2018

Sat Oct 28 00:10:04 CDT 2017

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?

"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.

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.

Nikhil

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Frank Shields <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 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/20171028/43a7367a/attachment.html>