[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Wed Jul 18 20:32:28 CDT 2018


Nikhil wrote:
> By all evidence available to the eye, proponents of better biomass 
> stoves have thrown in the towel.

I can only interpret this to mean that YOU do not read about the TLUD 
stoves.  Or you think that I and others are not trying.

Do not appologize or make excuses.   Just get  the facts correct. Or at 
least do not imply  that ALL have given up.   One slip is forgiven.

On the other hand,  Kirk Smith repeatedly ignores TLUD stove progress.   
Never even a glimmer of acknowledgement of TLUD stoves.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 7/18/2018 12:51 PM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> Xavier:
>
> This is why gas and electricity have won.
>
> And GACC has failed to support cookstoves with solid primary biomass.
>
> None of the Lima, Hague signatories have yet responded to Kirk Smith's 
> challenge to the biomass community. Nor challenged WHO and GACC about 
> the Guidelines for Solid Fuel Combustion that practically rule out 
> unprocessed (primary) biomass. Nor bothered that SDG progress is to be 
> measured by transition from solid fuels.
>
> By all evidence available to the eye, proponents of better biomass 
> stoves have thrown in the towel. Whether they games they were defeated 
> by were silly or foul, dumb or dirty, doesn't bother me.
>
> I have yet to see a test for stove+user+vessel+fuel+food. Leave alone 
> an international standard for it.
>
> Make merry, not food? (Wet finger from finger-licking food is the test 
> of cooking, after all.)
>
> Nikhil (Proudly Peerless)
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:03 PM, "Xavier Brandao" <xav.brandao at gmail.com 
> <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nikhil,
>>
>> The CSI or WHT measure the qualities of the cooking system, and that 
>> includes the stove itself (and the vessel).
>>
>> Reliability is nothing more than that: « if I test this stove, within 
>> this cooking system « stove + user + vessel + fuel + food », can I 
>> trust the lab results to give me good indication on how the stove 
>> will operate in real life, with a similar cooking system »?
>>
>> That’s the minimum requirement.
>>
>> /« //it is the overall economy of cooking »/
>>
>> Sure, it is this economy which is often difficult to predict and 
>> improve i.e. the stove which saves fuel in the lab and wastes fuel in 
>> the kitchen.
>>
>> /« 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)? »/
>>
>> No one. But everyone cares about what these performance metrics 
>> translate. Even the user: « my stove cooks faster, it’s great to 
>> prepare breakfast in the morning. » « I need to fetch twice less wood 
>> or buy twice less charcoal », « I cough less » etc.
>>
>> « A repeat plea - listen to the cooks who cook meals, not numbers. »
>>
>> Listening to cooks is what everyone does or tries to do. The hardest 
>> part is what comes after. It is easy to say « listen to cooks », but 
>> how do you design a stove from there?
>>
>> Your future customer will say: « I want my new stove to be quicker 
>> than my mud stove, with no smoke. I want it to allow to cook big or 
>> small quantity of food, and to save wood ».
>>
>> Once you have listened to a cook, how do you design a stove from there?
>>
>> Have you already tried to design, build, test, improve a stove Nikhil?
>>
>> I don’t see how a stove can be designed with no numbers and only a 
>> wet finger.
>>
>> To test the stove with a wok, there are the CCT and KPT.
>>
>> In the lab, the WHT and CSI approach seem to make much more sense to 
>> me. The customer needs can translate in numbers. You need to cook 
>> rice and dhal? But how does it translate in terms of time, power to 
>> the pot?
>>
>> If you say: « I want my smartphone to be responsive and powerful », 
>> this translates to numbers for the engineers in the lab. But, of 
>> course, you will submit the target-customer to your product, to the 
>> experience of it, so he/can can tell you how he/she feels, how the 
>> product feels.
>>
>> /"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."/
>>
>> Sure, and it has been said many times that new protocols, more 
>> adapted, should be developed if someone feels it is needed.
>>
>> You have tried the CSI and WHT to test a stove + wok used for stir 
>> frying, and you think it is not adapted?
>>
>> Tell exactly what is not adapted, how it could be better, develop 
>> your own protocol, and submit it to peer review.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>> *De :*Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 18 juillet 2018 01:56
>> *À :* Xavier Brandao
>> *Cc :* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Paul Anderson; Kirk H.; 
>> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>> *Objet :* Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests
>>
>> 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/
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180718/290d5951/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list