[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

Tue Jul 17 18:56:03 CDT 2018

Xavier:

Nicely put.

The way I read Kirk H., his complaint is that "these cooking vessel tests
.. do not measure the qualities of the stove itself."

You and Crispin seem to be obsessed with "reliability". Of course,
reproducibility is a hallmark of science. But my question is, "reliability"
of what and why?

There is no reason to worry about fuel or thermal efficiency per se; it is
the overall economy of cooking - which no doubt includes costs of food
ingredients, water, fuel, vessels, stove, time - that even a supposedly
illiterate woman understands and tries to obtain.

Equally, there is no reason to worry about per minute emission rates unless
they are shown to predictably affect exposures, not computed fantasies of
air circulation models for closed spaces, one room or two or three.

So, except for CDM and Gold Standard who rely on fictional CO2 avoidance
(and ignore health pollutants), or marketers of HAPIT, who cares about
performance metrics and tiers that you and Crispin, along with many others,
signed off on six or more years ago (Hague or Lima)?

In that sense, I think Kirk H. has advanced a most valuable and succinct
suggestion, even keeping efficiency as a metric -

"How about looking into some more versatile tests that are not limited to a
pot of water.  How would we test the efficiency of getting the heat into a
wok being used for stir frying?  Perhaps we could use an infrared
thermometer to measure the temperature of the food and end the test when it
all reaches a temperature that kills bacteria.  How about testing the stove
and the cooking vessel separately, so each has its own values?  That would
give the consumer a much better preview of both, and more knowledge to pick
and choose."

Amen. This is complicated but a step toward realism. Different fuels and
meals can provide additional variation.

The ProPublica piece is junk journalism, another trip report from poverty
tourism. I think a new thinking can start with a modest acknowledgement
that a cookstove is for cooking, that performance metrics may only be
defined in the context of a"service standard" (actions such as boil, steam,
wok fry, deep fry, roast, and major meal types that cover most of these
actions and employ different vessels) and of public policy (i.e.,
non-cooking - e.g., air quality improvement).

A repeat plea - listen to the cooks who cook meals, not numbers.

Reading the Indonesia pilot report yesterday, I remember an analogy with
Indonesia Solar Home Systems project, which became a template for many
other SHS projects. For bulk procurement under the rules of competitive
bidding, entire systems were specified; this led to one disaster after
another. Under the SHS projects, components had to comply with standards,
but retailers were free to design the 35Wp, 50Wp SHS and after-sales
service pitch customized to their target customers.

Just maybe, this Indonesia cookstove pilot has created a template to
promote customer-centric design and subsidy scheme unlike anything EPA had
in mind in setting off the ISO exercise.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Kirk,
>
>
>
> We could also call « arguing »: « sound scientific discussion ».
>
> Researchers are arguing about climate change, Artifical Intelligence, the
> size of the universe … All that is necessary, I believe.
>
>
>
> The « WBT argument » that has been going on « for years » is more like
> Crispin hammering the fact that the WBT is not reliable, with little to no
> reaction, and Ron strongly defending the WBT because of the tiers and
> denominator equation.
>
> Lately, all the evidence against the WBT has been compiled, discussed, and
> has not been refuted.
>
> We also talked about alternative protocols at length.
>
>
>
> “I had a choice and I chose to work on the TLUD.”
>
> Very good. We are many different people, we can all work on many different
> things, and share our findings.
>
>
>
> None of the above discussions prevented anyone to work on the stove they
> like. Instead they gave them full information and warning about the
> situation with tests.
>
> I spend very little of my time talking about the WBT, I’m busy with other
> things.
>
>
>
> “If you were working on tests that could be used for all cooking vessels
> instead of just a pot of water I might abide with you”
>
> The CSI does that, normally. It is contextual. Crispin might be able to
> give more clarifications here. Kirk, have you tried this protocol?
>
>
>
> I believe the new standard allows different cooking vessels as well?
>
>
>
> “both disliked and liked tests”
>

> You mean unreliable and reliable.
>
>
>
> Indeed, now is the time to move forward. We want to move forward. We want
> to drive, drive, drive, fast. But it’s good that we checked first if the
> car was safe or if it was heading in the right direction.
>
>
>
> The ProPublica article sums it up well: only little progress has been
> achieved by the cookstove sector, after decades of hard work.
>
> The cause for that certainly wasn’t overthinking, was it?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *De la
> part de* Kirk H.
> *Envoyé :* mardi 17 juillet 2018 03:46
> *À :* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Objet :* [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests
>
>
>
> Xavier,
>
>
>
> The main idea in my response on 7-13 was that well designed TLUDs are
> excellent stoves, capable of suppling steady, efficient, and low
> particulate heat for cooking purposes.  As far as arguing over tests is
> concerned, some have indeed been arguing for years.  This was/is over the
> portion of the WBT which measures the efficiency of getting heat into a pot
> of water, which to me is very limited.  I had a choice and I chose to work
> on the TLUD.
>
>
>
> The next part of my statement is important:   “This especially for tests
> which have more to do with the cooking vessel than with the stove itself.”
> If you were working on tests that could be used for all cooking vessels
> instead of just a pot of water I might abide with you, but not for a test
> the results of which are of no value for anything but the test pot of
> water.  Do we have a test for stir frying in a wok?  Nope.  Only a pot of
> water.  Yet woks are extensively used for cooking.  And it doesn’t even
> matter if we use a wood stove.  The cooking vessel tests would get the same
> results over a natural gas burner as long as all the variables like skirt,
> lid, and pot stand are held the same.  These tests have to do with the
> cooking vessel not the capabilities of the stove.
>
>
>
> I can abide with the WBT or WHT as long as it is made clear that the
> disputed portion includes only the efficiency of getting heat into a pot of
> water, but says nothing about other much used cooking vessels, such as
> putting soup in the pot instead of water, or woks, griddles, ovens, etc.
> Also I note that these cooking vessel tests can use any heat source, like
> natural gas or electrical, and except for a limited relationship to fire
> power, do not measure the qualities of the stove itself.  Measurements
> concerning the stove are taken by the sensors and filters.
>
>
>
> Both the disliked and liked tests have a very limited scope.  How about
> looking into some more versatile tests that are not limited to a pot of
> water.  How would we test the efficiency of getting the heat into a wok
> being used for stir frying?  Perhaps we could use an infrared thermometer
> to measure the temperature of the food and end the test when it all reaches
> a temperature that kills bacteria.  How about testing the stove and the
> cooking vessel separately, so each has its own values?  That would give the
> consumer a much better preview of both, and more knowledge to pick and
> choose.
>
>
>
> TLUDs are very capable stoves, effectively heating whatever cooking vessel
> under which they are placed.
>
>
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180717/06e42d1a/attachment.html>