[Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 28 16:38:35 MDT 2018


Dear Ron:

The proof is in the pudding - cooked at the right time and the right
temperature. With the right ingredients and offering the taste that pleases
the consumer.

Keep the faith. A cook may at last find a stove that makes the right
pudding.

I have no disagreement whatsoever with the purported superiority of making
charcoal - as a byproduct or a principal product, or even without cooking.
I am even ready to sacrifice emission rates and fuel efficiency.

There are many an instances of international cooperation jumborees, some
lasting decades.

Nikhil

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


On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net
> wrote:

> Nikhil:
>
> You greatly underestimate the international degree of support for the
> TC285 effort.  It is not a standard and was never meant to be - very
> unusual for ISO.  TC285 is a continuing multi-country effort to come up
> with the best possible way to help advance (wood-burning) cookstove
> improvements.  I believe it will do so - especially because it allows
> comparing stoves that intentionally make as much charcoal as one can with
> those that don't.  Some existing stove standards deny that possibility.
> Countries that think it immoral to make charcoal in a cookstove have every
> right to keep on with their preferred standard.  That doesn't mean that
> charcoal-making stoves won't appear in those countries - which seems likely
> because char-making stoves can have negative costs for cooking.  The Tier
> system (supported by TC285) will help that progress along greatly (while
> sacrificing nothing on emissions and efficiency).
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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_list
>> s.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/20180728/f445f832/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list