[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

Fri Jul 27 21:24:23 CDT 2018

Crispin:

"What do do? Let's discuss options. "

Short answer - walk away, and inspire others to do the same.

This is just the first deliverable. Let the other shoes drop. What is the
schedule? What are the legal implications of not producing 19867-2? What is
ISO thinking - it can take its own sweet time and produce or refuse to
produce whatever the TC member feel like?

What TC-285 votes out means zilch until member countries accept it in toto.
My recommendation after 19867-1 review was to withhold judgment on the TC's
output until all the documents are in hand.

Then the question is, who is likely to adopt it in toto and what difference
is it going to make?

Just because ISO floats some standard means not a squat.

1. I think back in 2010, BAMG produced a "clean cookstoves catalog" for
GACC and recently we saw Jetter (et al.) 2018 results which had a list of
more stoves. Is anybody bothering to get Tiers ranking from any local
standards authority? In Kenya? India? Any of the other members of TC-285?

2. Who is offering money or credits? For what?

3. What's GACC role from now on? Are they likely to raise $100-200 m for
more marketing surveys, enterprise finance funds, this and that? If not who
is likely to do that?

I am not happy to conclude that GACC is dead; I would like to say "Long
Live the GACC", though just outside the UNF circus and out of EPA's
clutches.

Which brings me the last question:

4. Just who cares and why?

Monies are spent, papers are published, now national governments and oil,
electricity companies will enjoy the marketing efforts of SE4All, and next
to nothing is going to happen to biomass stove design and promotion until
we get away from the mania of forests and climate, boiling water and
smoking rings.

I repeat -- define a market, define a problem, and define somebody who is
interested in managing the grant finance required to do real field work,
not Geneva jaunts (which I understand were just virtual, and without
payment).

Dead wood can be burnt until it rots. GACC and ISO will soon become dead
wood. I guarantee it.

Saviors sought - from EU, BRICS. Something that can still be salvaged.

Or celebrate that GACC ended up in fire and as would TC-285. Let a phoenix
rise from the ashes. I still can't understand how in the age of Tesla
developing a small submarine to rescue Thai boys, and people discussing
growth of insect protein, stovers are still messing with efficiencies and
emission rates, despite Jetter's paper.

Nikhil

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

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Xavier
>
> "Is there a way we could get our hands on the documents of the new ISO
> standard, and share it with everyone on the List?"
>
> No.
>
> The ISO, like other Standards bodies, generates it's income from the sale
> of documents. They are priced on a per-page basis.
>
> When you buy a copy, it has your name on it. You are not allowed to make
> copies or post it on the Web. That is a condition of buying it.
>
> It has to be read together with many other documents: the definitions, the
> voluntary performance targets (which have to be purchased) and many
> external ‎documents related to describing or preparing and operating the
> specified equipment.
>
> The Standard is unusual in that it prescribes the equipment to be used,
> not just the measurements to be made and reported. This greatly raises the
> cost of performing a test, and I believe reduces its accuracy.
>
> Those with access to the required documentation are free to comment on its
> merits and workings and publish them. Because it affects my work, I will be
> writing one and can share it.
>
> The test method is novel, unpublished, ‎and not tested by national
> structures. Its intent is to make an 'international comparison' between
> stoves on a common reporting platform. As we are already aware, such
> comparisons are meaningless unless the context of use happens to coincide
> with the test sequence. The test sequence is 30 minutes of high power, 30
> minutes of medium power, and 30 minutes of low power.
>
> The only group I know personally that tried to follow the protocol from
> the instructions was unable to ‎get consistent results, largely because the
> ending of the measurement period(s) is unclear.
>
> In a sense, it claims to be decontextualized, like the WBT or an EPA test,
> but also 'permits' what amounts to contextual tests, which was supposed to
> be covered by ISO 19867-2‎ which had clear guidelines on how to do that. It
> is very unlikely that document will ever see the light of day.
>
> We are therefore left with ‎19867-1 which pretty much let's you do what
> you want. It is very easy to cheat (apply bias) which we presume will
> typically by applied in favour of one's own product.
>
> The VPT numbers in 19867-3, about which many concerns were raised before
> and after the ISO exercise, were produced using a highly dubious process,
> which in part explains why they are in a separate document. I expect the
> numerical values will be challenged in the journals. One paper just
> published by Omar Masera and others already showed the targets are too low
> (for Mexico) by a factor of about 6. The actual exposure from the stove was
> 6-10 times less than the WHO single box model predicts it will be.
>
> The implication is that a stove ISO-rated to be a Tier 2 is really a Tier
> 4 when it comes to the actual exposure the WHO says is going to be safe, or
> very low risk. Some Tier 3 stoves might actually be Tier 5. I will check
> that.
>
> The major point is that the VPT's were created to promote LPG and the
> basis for that was 'health protective exposure levels' for PM2.5. Now it it
> turns out that 'protective' levels are achieved in typical kitchens ‎with
> stoves having a far higher emission rate. I have been pointing out the bad
> math here for ages. And not only here.
>
> What do do? Let's discuss options.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Xavier, Kirk and list
>
> see below
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:53 PM, <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> <
> xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> I don’t think the new ISO standard includes the WBT, I think you are the
> only person claiming that.
>
>
> *[RWL:  I guess you will trust what the South Africa group thinks on this
> subject.  They failed in a fight to remove the WBT. *
>
> * I could send a copy of what has been approved - but that would violate
> the agreement I made to be part of the process.  *
>
> *I assure you that I have plenty of company - and it will appear soon.  *
>
> *What Nikhil has is possibly/probably 99% of the final.*
>
>
> Until there exists reviews of the WBT protocol demonstrating it is valid,
> the « cites for inadequacy that are very old » (some are from 2016 and
> 2017) will be the only proofs there is.
>
> « *[RWL3:   Can you give cites on these three sentences?  Maybe from some
> group that treats char as waste? »*
> See the table from *Riva and al., Fuzzy interval propagation of
> uncertainties in experimental analysis for*
> *improved and traditional three – Stone fire cookstoves* below, this is
> with the WBT:
>
> <image001.png>
> Some of the stoves tested were « Micro-Gasifier Stoves with FAN »
>
> *« [RWL4:   I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or
> char-making. »*
>
>
> *RWL:  I agree that the word micro-gasifier was there.  They still were
> only arguing for more tests - that I still claim aren't worth the extra
> effort.  Too much depends on the operator of the test.   But that is not
> sufficient reason to drop the test.  Just be satisfied if you and other
> groups can get within a few percent.*
>
> *Ron*
>
> See above.
>
> *« They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is un-needed
> and wasteful of time and money. »*
> Only with the WBT I believe. I don’t think the CSI protocol needs more
> test sessions.
>
> Everyone,
> Is there a way we could get our hands on the documents of the new ISO
> standard, and share it with everyone on the List?
> Could we crowdpay it for example, and leave it on a website or a server
> for everyone to see?
>
> I think it is really a shame that the document is behind a paywall.
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
>
> *De :* Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 26 juillet 2018 21:33
> *À :* Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Xavier
> Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>; Kirk Harris <kgharris at sonic.net>
> *Objet :* Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests
>
> List, Xavier and Kirk
>
>                 The main item not being discussed below is the recently
> approved (with a huge majority by a lot of stove experts - after years of
> debate) new ISO test procedures.  To me this proves conclusively that the
> WBT is fine.  Giving cites for inadequacy that are very old is no proof of
> anything.
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2018, at 12:51 PM, <xav.brandao at gmail.com> <
> xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Kirk,
>
> “A well designed TLUD type stove will do well, whatever test it is given.”
>
>                 *RWL1:   Kirk - I have to disagree.  There are tests
> (especially one used in China) that treat char as waste - and so don't
> measure the produced char.  I guarantee that TLUDs will look bad on those
> tests.*
>
>
> Will it for sure? I have not tested nor seen tests of TLUD stoves myself,
> nor read that much about TLUD testing.
>
>                 *[RWL2:  I gave a cite yesterday to a paper by Jetter et
> al, that is on testing.  Clearly the best performing stoves there were
> TLUDs and fan-powered (also TLUD principles).  To repeat - see*
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
> 648.7709&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.648.7709%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccd779a9e54f64b8b10ac08d5f420797b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636683342662918792&sdata=xPDuZa%2BQGPdp3mvZ5c57xRdrFZ%2BOUMqRCkfH4%2Bmts2I%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> “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.
>
>                 *[RWL3:   Can you give cites on these three sentences?
> Maybe from some group that treats char as waste?*
>
> Have you read Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi papers?
>
>                 *[RWL4:   I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs
> or char-making.  They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is
> un-needed and wasteful of time and money.*
>
>                 *I'll stop here - to give time on the above.*
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180727/73b4d4ad/attachment.html>