[Stoves] Development of culturally appropriate stove testing methods

Tue Jun 5 21:42:16 CDT 2018

Paul, Crispin:

Method is secondary to purpose.

The claim that of "robust and diagnostic results with which to compare
fuel/cookstove technologies" begs the question "to what end?"

Is it simply axiomatic that "Cookstove designers and programme managers who
wish to improve the design of existing and new cookstoves, and to promote
efficient fuel/cookstove technologies based on sound laboratory tests can
use the principles explored in this study."?

Whatever happened to "pleasing the cook" so that the product designed is
useful and used?

What is the basis for the faith that "sound" lab testing leads to popular
solid-fuel stoves for the poor? Or are we most interested in pleasing peers
and impressing grant-makers via "international" tear-ratings?

That unsound testing methods - fuel-free, cook-free, context-free - have
failed to produce reliable results is one thing; whether energy efficiency
and hourly average emission rates, even when reliably predicted by sound
testing methods, lead to stoves that are used more widely and rapidly is
quite another.

Especially with purchased fuels such as coal and charcoal, with dual
purpose (cooking and heating) application, what sense does it make to
compute and compare just thermal efficiencies and emission rates? It's not
as if primary biomass for charcoal - or coal - is going to disappear any
time soon; just bring them from longer distances. Nor is some "health
protective" emission rate going to reduce all pollutant ingestion
automatically.

What do we know about just who cares and ought to, based on what theories
of resource economics or consumer behavior? Or, for that matter, of aDALYs?

I think stove science should be answerable to cooks. "Culturally
appropriate" testing is not enough; culturally and geographically
appropriate performance metrics are necessary.

I propose an innovative, anti-scientific alternative: create user
satisfaction ratings from field evaluation of market shares for fuels and
stoves.

And a radical idea - "clean" is a subjective criterion. User air matters,
not academic airs.

Nikhil

On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

Stovers,

I have read major parts, but not all of the publication, so my comments
could be incorrect or insufficient.   But here goes:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Development-of-
Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-Testing-Methods

1.  Congratualations to Tafadzwe (known to his friends as Taffy, but maybe
with a different spelling) and his three co-authors (including Crispin).
This publication should be studied widely.  (Crispin, please be sure that
the co-authors receive this message and can send replies to the Stoves
Listserv directly or via you.)

2.  It is about stove testing METHODS.   Key is the water heating test
(WHT) as an alternative to the water boiling test (WBT).   Bring the pot of
water to 80 deg C and then put on another pot to continue heating, repeat
as long as the test time.   Also of importance is that the stoves are on a
sensitive scale that can reveal the weight loss (fuel used) as the test
progresses.

3.  The changing of the pot of water means no intentional changing of the
power of the stove during the test.   That is, there is no "simmering"
stage (which is a major contention in the WBT).   And no "fiddling" with
the turn-down abilities.   A stove can be run at high power, and again
SEPARATELY at middle or low power.  But not mixing the power levels.   This
is especially applicable to stoves that do not have much or any turn-down
ability.   (see discussion of stoves below).

(Comment:  Regardless of whether the WBT is used or not, the WHT appears
to  me to  be logical and useful.)

4.  The title of the publication is:

Heterogeneous Stove Testing Methods for the Evaluation of Domestic
Solid-Fuel Cookstoves

I am not so sure that the word "heterogeneous" is the right term, but that
could just be my personal opinion.
The words "culturally appropriate" (in the Subject line of the email from
Crispin) were not seen in the publication (I did not see them) and the
publication does not make an issue about culturally appropriate testing of
cooking methods.

5.  "Solid-Fuel" is a key term, and in this publication does NOT refer to
wood or dry biomass.   The fuels discussed are charcoal and coal.   That is
fine, but they are a limited subset of the varieties of solid fuels.

6.  Therefore, the stoves tested included 2 charcoal stoves, a coal-fueled
downdraft gasifier, and the common South African Imbuela (bucket burning of
coal) that was IGNITED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.    The traditional way is to
ignite at the bottom (call it bottom lit or BL) and the other is at the top
(top lit or TL).  See the report for the differences.   My one comment is
that the use of the "TLUD" name (normally associated with wood
micro-gasification) is a bit of a stretch when presenting a single-walled,
metal, "largish" bucket with many side holes and filled with coal.

7.  The publication opens the door for further testing that should
established stoves, with comparative data of the WHT and the WBT so that
the science of stove testing can be advanced.   Maybe Crispin or Taffy can
tell us about any further plans (or options) for stove testing with the WHT.

My appologies in advance for any omissions or mis-understandings.

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 6/5/2018 8:30 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

Dear Friends

>From Dr Tafadzwe Makonese at the SeTAR Centre:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Development-of-
Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-Testing-Methods

Regards
Crispin

Abstract

More rigorous and detailed test procedures are desirable to determine the
effect of various design modifications on the performance of fuel/cookstove
combinations, and to optimize their performance. This research paper
investigated the effect of a novel heterogeneous testing method to evaluate
the performance of domestic solid fuel/cookstove combinations. The
water-heating test (WHT) and the 'hood' method were used as the basis of
the tests with additional variants of fuel load, power setting and method
of ignition. The experimental cookstoves included a typical brazier
(Imbaula), a new type Mozambique ceramic cookstove, the baseline Mozambique
metal cookstove, and the bottom-lit down-drafting (BLDD) coal cookstove.
Results showed that a heterogeneous testing method provides more
representative performance data over a wide range of usage scenarios, the
equivalent of providing performance curves rather than the minimum and
maximum performance points provided by single tasked based methods. This
novel heterogeneous testing method generates robust and diagnostic results
with which to compare fuel/cookstove technologies. Cookstove designers and
programme managers who wish to improve the design of existing and new
cookstoves, and to promote efficient fuel/cookstove technologies based on
sound laboratory tests can use the principles explored in this study.

_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180605/d562a02d/attachment.html>