[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

[xav.brandao at gmail.com]

Dear Kirk,

 

“A well designed TLUD type stove will do well, whatever test it is given.”

Will it for sure? I have not tested nor seen tests of TLUD stoves myself, nor read that much about TLUD testing.

 

“A lesser performing type stove will accordingly do less well, whatever test it is given.”

No.

It might perform great sometimes with the WBT. Then terrible. Then great. Then quite ok.

Then it might perform great or terrible in the field.

There is too much variability and unreliability.

Have you read Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi papers?

 

“Is there a lab on the west coast of the USA where I/we can have cooking vessels tested with this test?  This would be a lab with quality equipment and well trained personal, not back yard equipment.”

I don’t know.

The only labs I know of which perform the CSI are the YDD lab (Yayasan Dian Desa), and the CAU (China Agricultural University) lab.

But any lab can perform it: the Burn Design Lab or the Aprovecho could very well do it. I think it is worth asking them.

 

OK, you chose to say “disliked and liked tests”. It is up to you. I choose to say “reliable and unreliable”, and this is not judgmental. It is backed with scientific evidence, it is the conclusion of a dozen studies reviewing the protocols.

Likewise “smoking is unhealthy” is not judgmental. It is objective and based on scientific data.

Have you read the studies I shared many times?

If you didn’t, here they are:

 

*	Lombardi F., Riva F., Bonamini G., Barbieri J., Colombo E., Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments, 06/02/2017

 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X

 

*	Lombardi F., Riva F., Colombo E., Guidelines for reporting and analysing laboratory test results for biomass cooking stoves, 01/2017

 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_and_analysing_laboratory_test_results_for_biomass_cooking_stoves> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_and_analysing_laboratory_test_results_for_biomass_cooking_stoves

 

*	Riva F., Lombardi F., Pavarini C., Colombo E., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves, 09/07/2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves

 

*	Bailis R., Berrueta V., Chengappa C., Dutta K., Edwards R., Masera O., Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70., 2007 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type=pdf> &rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

*	Pendelton Taylor R., The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, 2009
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534 <http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd> &context=etd

 

*	L’Orange C., DeFoort M., Willson B., Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and development of an improved testing protocol, 2009
https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf

 

*	Gorrity M., Trujillo G., Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of expanded uncertainty for WBT, 2013
http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf

 

*	Ding H., Liu J., Zhang Y., Dong R., Pang C., Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols, 2013
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&type=pdf> &rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

*	Zhang Y., Pemberton-Pigott C., Zhang Z., Ding H., Zhou Y., Dong R., Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11., 2014
http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/

To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged alphabetically).

 

*	Wang Y., Sohn MD., How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate., 2014
http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-et-al._final.pdf

 

*	Lloyd P., Annegarn H., Pemberton-Pigott C., Towards a standard for clean solid-fuelled cookstoves, 2015

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_clean_solid-fuelled_cookstoves

 

*	Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Zhou Y., Riaz A., Pemberton-Pigott C., Annegarn H., Dong R., Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves, 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves

 

One might have the feeling there is a “debate” about the WBT, or that we are “arguing”.

 

In fact, the conversation about the WBT boils down to that:

*	Usually Crispin or myself point at the issues with the WBT, backed with studies.
*	Someone says he thinks the WBT is ok
*	We ask if he read the studies
*	He didn’t
*	We point at the studies, documenting the issues with the WBT
*	Repeat

 

“Very little progress has been made.  I assume that you are not saying that we should give up. “

Of course not. We should try again, smarter.

 

Best,


Xavier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180726/7e362c6c/attachment.html>