<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top">Cecil, excellent analysis.<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_0.7385743544436991"><br></div><div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_0.7385743544436991">An alternative to TUV Rheinland is SGS International. It reviews all solid fuel stoves prior to entering the EU zone. It also reviewed the Mongolian heating stove testing protocol back in 2011. It has a state of the art stove emissions lab in Arhem, the Netherlands. <br><br><p><a href="https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android">Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android</a></p> <hr><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="font-family:Roboto, sans-serif;color:#7e7d80;"><b>From</b>:"Cecil Cook" <cec1863@gmail.com><br><b>Date</b>:Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 0:33<br><b>Subject</b>:Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS
2015<br><br></div> <div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Dear Stovers,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Not sure what has caused time to skip beat here. I just wrote and
lost a very clever response to the present thread of discussion on the multiple
short comings of the WBT which remarked the following: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(1.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Science - even
stove science - grows by fits and starts;</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(2.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">science learns more
from recognizing that <b>big mistakes</b> have inadvertently been made
that it does from research that confirms well established scientific paradigms (see
Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery for the usefulness of scientific
failure)</span></p><p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></p><p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(3.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">in science - even
the science of biomass stoves - progress comes from the</span><br></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">retransmission of falsehood (falsification) by deductive chains of logic
from the failed predictions back to the falsification of theories, metrics, and
models because they generated mistaken predictions about stove performance (or
such matters as planetary motion, climate warming and weirding, the effect of GMO
's on human and animal health, race as a construct and its effect on IQ, and
the Lamarkian notion that acquired characteristics can be inherited, etc.)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(4.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">we are fortunate
that people like Ianto Evans, Larry Winiarski, Dean Still, Peter Scott,
Nordica, Sam, and probably many others I do not know took the bull by the horns
and bravely originated a preliminary set of principles for designing improved
biomass burning stoves and also cobbled together a series of provisional efficiency
and emission tests. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">These were the original Aprovecho stove pioneers who also founded the
Rocket Stove movement which mercifully improved upon the earlier Lorena stove experiment
that constructed thousands of high mass clay/sand ‘masonry’ stoves which were
soon discovered to be much less efficient than a well operated 3 stone fire.
This group of appropriate technology oriented, back to the land hippies gradually
became more technical and began to refine and apply the VITA WBT to measure and
compare the efficiency of different kinds of simple biomass stoves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">They put together a set of specifications and principles for designing,
building and optimizing the Rocket Stove which became the prototype in the mind
of the Aprovecho movement for all improved cookstoves anywhere in the world. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Finally, the Aprovecho-niks and communards were joined by university
based engineers, physicists, chemists, and atmospheric scientists from UC
Berkeley, and a wide spectrum of university based scientists and private sector
professionals associated with the annual Ethos conference. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">This professional and hands on US based network has been busy over the
past 15 years attempting to clearly specify metrics that measure the
technological performance of biomass stoves. It has also pioneered the design
and instrumentation of stove testing centers and the specification of observational
protocols that correctly ‘opertionalize’ these metrics. From the
beginning, the main purpose was to discover simple tests that empirically
assess the efficiency and emission performance of improved biomass stoves and also
to make quantitative comparisons between improved stoves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">The rejection or lukewarm reception of many – perhaps most - improved
stoves in many countries of the developing world over the years has forced
European, American, Indian, African, Latin American, and Chinese designers and
makers of improved stoves to gradually expand their horizons to investigate the
roles played by all the other major factors, interests, and constituencies which
significantly influence over the acceptance or rejection of new biomass stoves
including: (i.) funding agents like USAID, the World Bank, and GIZ, (ii.) standard
setting agencies like EPA and the WHO, (iii.) large scale industrial and village
scale craft manufacturers, (iv.) the controllers of access to gathered or
commercialized fuels from the nearby environments, and (v.) the socio-economic,
cultural, and human factors involved in the institutionalization of one or more dominant stove technologies and
products in a particular market segment; these human factors are ultimately the
most important determinants of user acceptance or rejection of improved stoves.
The acceptance or rejection depends on the perceptions of the utility of a new
stove within the household economy where the stove has multiple functions to
perform: cooking the food eaten by the family, heating its home, earning income
by providing heat to power home industry, purifying water, drying crops, providing
light, and creating a social and spiritual center around which family life
revolves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Speaking as a science challenged social anthropologist I think that
several things need to be acknowledged about the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos (ABE)
alliance. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(1.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">It has done a good
job of promoting the Rocket Stove design around the world. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(2.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">On the down side, its
efforts to demystify the design of improved stoves and empower village and
craft fabricators of simple low cost stoves, the ABE Alliance appears to have
conflated improved stoves in general with the basic Rocket Stove. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(3.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">This conflation of
Rocket stoves with biomass stoves in general has unfortunately led to emission
and efficiency metrics and testing procedures which perhaps unintentionally advantage
the Rocket Stove and disadvantage all other types of stoves (e.g., the specification
of 1 inch square pieces of oven dried spruce or pine as the test fuel that must
be expertly fed into any stove being tested).
The reliance on metrics and test protocols which favour some stoves and
disadvantage other stoves does not lead to stable or valid comparisons of the efficiency
and emission performances of different types of stoves or even the same kind of
stoves. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(4.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">The leadership role
assumed by the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos Alliance in the US State Dept funded and
EPA supported Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and the GACC’s adoption of
the WBT metrics, protocols and instrumentation has complicated an already
complex predicament. Because personal and institutional reputations are at risk,
it is becoming increasingly difficult to radically change the WBT metrics, test
protocols, and instruments without creating winners and losers. The GACC and
big political players are in danger of exposure for prematurely funding big
implementation programs without first settling the science of small biomass
stove testing. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(5.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Here is my proposal
for salvaging the present ugly situation of stove scientists behaving badly in
public: let all the stove scientists and stove testers who think they know how
to test the efficiency and emissions of small cooking and heating stoves agree
on an independent standard developing and setting organization like TUV
Rheinland-USA (</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,102,33);"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.tuv.com/en/usa/home.jsp">www.<b>tuv</b>.com/en/usa/home.jsp</a>) </span><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;">or some other respected science
testing establishment in the world and ask them to review all the different metrics,
testing protocols, equipment/instrumentation on offer. The GACC probably has the funds needed to pay
for such a comprehensive review. It can invite all the stove scientists and
testers with skin in the game to form themselves into a small advisory body
whose job is to ensure that no interested party or parties captures or
dominates the review of existing test protocols and metrics. That means the proposed
advisory group will have to consult openly about the rules that will govern the
consultative, </span><span style="font-size:16px;">re-conciliatory</span><span style="font-size:12pt;"> and global culture and science creating process
they will go through together. </span></font></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(6.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">I understand that
the ISO process and the IWA’s are attempting to do what I am proposing we ask
TUV Rheinland or another comparable science testing institution to do on behalf
of the presently dysfunctional small stove community around the planet. Here is
my contention: the ISO was and is premature because the small stove community
is too divided by conflicting research styles and programs prioritizing the
stove operator, family health, employment creation, environmental stability,
energy sustainability, and decentralization and appropriate technology. The suggested involvement of TUV Rheinland USA
is to help a grumpy, preoccupied, and stressed out international stove
community to speed up its integration around second generation metrics, stove
testing protocols, lab procedures, and possibly even field tests. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">My interest here is
to allow all stove scientists and hands-on stove innovators to give their
testimony about: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(i.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what specific aspects of stove performance need to be observed, reduced
to metrics, quantified and compared, </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(ii.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what testing protocols, methodologies, equipment, and </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(iii.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what field observations are required to predict both stove performance
and probable stove use in particular target communities? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">In that way the Independent third party agency reviewing the WBT, the
testimony of the partisans of particular approaches to testing and specific metrics,
will get the benefit of all the years of good work done by stove scientists,
manufacturers, trainers, vendors, lab testers, back yard innovators, etc.
around the world. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">If we simply continue the low intensity stove testing wars fought at the
World Bank, USAID, EPA, UC Berkeley, several national labs, the GACC, and in
most of the different countries where stove testing is under development we
will continue to develop backwards. It is not fair to our partners in the
developing world because we are sewing confusion and conflict among our
partisans and our enemies. </span><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12pt;">My goodness such conduct is not professional, even in post modern North America and
Europe where nowadays it’s difficult to find a flesh and blood human being to talk to in
the midst of cyber anarchy and inward facing crowds.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">And let us not forget dear Rumi, a Sufi poet who wrote in the 13<sup>th</sup>
century: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span class=""><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">O</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">ut beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing,</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"><br>
<span style="">there is a field.
I'll meet you there.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="">When the soul lies
down in that grass,</span><br>
<span style="">the world is too
full to talk about.</span><br>
<span style="">Ideas, language,
even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">Ask Rumi to help us find our way out of this mess
we are creating. And do not forget what Walt Kelly’s philosophical opossum - Pogo - who lived in the Okefenokee swamp in my part of south Georgia as known to say when politics got out of hand:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">“We have met the enemy and he is us” or even
better: “we are defeated by insurmountable opportunities”. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">In search and service,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">CECook </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Dear Stovers,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Not sure what has caused time to skip a beat here. I just wrote and
lost a very clever response to the present thread of discussion on the multiple
short comings of the WBT which remarked the following: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(1.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Science - even
stove science - grows by fits and starts;</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(2.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">science learns more
from recognizing that <b>big mistakes</b> have inadvertently been made
that it does from research that confirms well established scientific paradigms (see
Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery for the usefulness of scientific
failure)</span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(3.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">in science - even
the science of biomass stoves - progress comes from the </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">retransmission of falsehood (falsification) by deductive chains of logic
from the failed predictions back to the falsification of theories, metrics, and
models because they generated mistaken predictions about stove performance (or
such matters as planetary motion, climate warming and weirding, the effect of GMO
's on human and animal health, race as a construct and its effect on IQ, and
the Lamarkian notion that acquired characteristics can be inherited, etc.)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(4.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">we are fortunate
that people like Ianto Evans, Larry Winiarski, Dean Still, Peter Scott,
Nordica, Sam, and probably many others I do not know took the bull by the horns
and bravely originated a preliminary set of principles for designing improved
biomass burning stoves and also cobbled together a series of provisional efficiency
and emission tests. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">These were the original Aprovecho stove pioneers who also founded the
Rocket Stove movement which mercifully improved upon the earlier Lorena stove experiment
that constructed thousands of high mass clay/sand ‘masonry’ stoves which were
soon discovered to be much less efficient than a well operated 3 stone fire.
This group of appropriate technology oriented, back to the land hippies gradually
became more technical and began to refine and apply the VITA WBT to measure and
compare the efficiency of different kinds of simple biomass stoves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">They put together a set of specifications and principles for designing,
building and optimizing the Rocket Stove which became the prototype in the mind
of the Aprovecho movement for all improved cookstoves anywhere in the world. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Finally, the Aprovecho-niks and communards were joined by university
based engineers, physicists, chemists, and atmospheric scientists from UC
Berkeley, and a wide spectrum of university based scientists and private sector
professionals associated with the annual Ethos conference. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">This professional and hands on US based network has been busy over the
past 15 years attempting to clearly specify metrics that measure the
technological performance of biomass stoves. It has also pioneered the design
and instrumentation of stove testing centers and the specification of observational
protocols that correctly ‘opertionalize’ these metrics. From the
beginning, the main purpose was to discover simple tests that empirically
assess the efficiency and emission performance of improved biomass stoves and also
to make quantitative comparisons between improved stoves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">The rejection or lukewarm reception of many – perhaps most - improved
stoves in many countries of the developing world over the years has forced
European, American, Indian, African, Latin American, and Chinese designers and
makers of improved stoves to gradually expand their horizons to investigate the
roles played by all the other major factors, interests, and constituencies which
significantly influence over the acceptance or rejection of new biomass stoves
including: (i.) funding agents like USAID, the World Bank, and GIZ, (ii.) standard
setting agencies like EPA and the WHO, (iii.) large scale industrial and village
scale craft manufacturers, (iv.) the controllers of access to gathered or
commercialized fuels from the nearby environments, and (v.) the socio-economic,
cultural, and human factors involved in the institutionalization of one or more dominant stove technologies and
products in a particular market segment; these human factors are ultimately the
most important determinants of user acceptance or rejection of improved stoves.
The acceptance or rejection depends on the perceptions of the utility of a new
stove within the household economy where the stove has multiple functions to
perform: cooking the food eaten by the family, heating its home, earning income
by providing heat to power home industry, purifying water, drying crops, providing
light, and creating a social and spiritual center around which family life
revolves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Speaking as a science challenged social anthropologist I think that
several things need to be acknowledged about the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos (ABE)
alliance. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(1.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">It has done a good
job of promoting the Rocket Stove design around the world. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(2.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">On the down side, its
efforts to demystify the design of improved stoves and empower village and
craft fabricators of simple low cost stoves, the ABE Alliance appears to have
conflated improved stoves in general with the basic Rocket Stove. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(3.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">This conflation of
Rocket stoves with biomass stoves in general has unfortunately led to emission
and efficiency metrics and testing procedures which perhaps unintentionally advantage
the Rocket Stove and disadvantage all other types of stoves (e.g., the specification
of 1 inch square pieces of oven dried spruce or pine as the test fuel that must
be expertly fed into any stove being tested).
The reliance on metrics and test protocols which favour some stoves and
disadvantage other stoves does not lead to stable or valid comparisons of the efficiency
and emission performances of different types of stoves or even the same kind of
stoves. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(4.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">The leadership role
assumed by the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos Alliance in the US State Dept funded and
EPA supported Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and the GACC’s adoption of
the WBT metrics, protocols and instrumentation has complicated an already
complex predicament. Because personal and institutional reputations are at risk,
it is becoming increasingly difficult to radically change the WBT metrics, test
protocols, and instruments without creating winners and losers. The GACC and
big political players are in danger of exposure for prematurely funding big
implementation programs without first settling the science of small biomass
stove testing. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(5.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Here is my proposal
for salvaging the present ugly situation of stove scientists behaving badly in
public: let all the stove scientists and stove testers who think they know how
to test the efficiency and emissions of small cooking and heating stoves agree
on an independent standard developing and setting organization like TUV
Rheinland-USA (</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,102,33);"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.tuv.com/en/usa/home.jsp">www.<b>tuv</b>.com/en/usa/home.jsp</a>) </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">or some other respected science
testing establishment in the world and ask them to review all the different metrics,
testing protocols, equipment/instrumentation on offer. The GSCC probably has the funds needed to pay
for such a comprehensive review. It can invite all the stove scientists and
testers with skin in the game to form themselves into a small advisory body
whose job is to ensure that no interested party or parties captures or
dominates the review of existing test protocols and metrics. That means the proposed
advisory group will have to consult openly about the rules that will govern the
consultative, reconciliatory and global culture and science creating process
they will go through together. </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(6.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">I understand that
the ISO process and the IWA’s are attempting to do what I am proposing we ask
TUV Rheinland or another comparable science testing institution to do on behalf
of the presently dysfunctional small stove community around the planet. Here is
my contention: the ISO was and is premature because the small stove community
is too divided by conflicting research styles and programs prioritizing health,
employment creation, environmental stability, energy sustainability, decentralization
and appropriate technology. The suggested
involvement to TUV Rheinland USA is to help a grumpy, preoccupied, and stressed
out international stove community to speed up its integration around second generation
metrics, stove testing protocols, lab procedures, and possibly even field
tests. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">My interest here is
to allow all stove scientists and hands on stove workers to give their
testimony about </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(i.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what specific aspects of stove performance need to be observed, reduced
to metrics, quantified and compared, </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(ii.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what testing protocols, methodologies, equipment, and </span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">(iii.)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">what field observations are required to predict both stove performance
and probable stove use in particular target communities? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">In that way the Independent third party agency reviewing the WBT, the
testimony of the partisans of particular approaches to testing and particular
metrics, will get the benefit of all the years of good work done by stove
scientists, manufacturers, trainers, vendors, lab testers, back yard
innovators, etc. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">If we simply continue the low intensity stove testing wars fought at the
World Bank, USAID, EPA, UC Berkeley, several national labs, the GACC, and in
most of the different countries where stove testing is under development we
will continue to develop backwards. It is not fair to our partners in the
developing world because we are sewing confusion and conflict among our
partisans and our enemies.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">And let us not forget dear Rumi, a Sufi poet who wrote in the 13<sup>th</sup>
century: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span class=""><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">O</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">ut beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing,</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"><br>
<span style="">there is a field.
I'll meet you there.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="">When the soul lies
down in that grass,</span><br>
<span style="">the world is too
full to talk about.</span><br>
<span style="">Ideas, language,
even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">Ask Rumi to help us find our way out of this mess
we are creating. And do not forget what Walt Kelly’s philosophical opossum of
the Okefenokee swamp in my part of south Georgia liked to say:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">“We have met the enemy and he is us” or even
better: “we are defeated by insurmountable opportunities”. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">In search and service,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:black;">CECook</span><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Dean Still <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:deankstill@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">deankstill@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div dir="ltr">Dear Philip,<div><br></div><div>The Low Power test works well when the fuel use is normalized using a set simmering temperature. </div><div><br></div><div>Sam and I are writing up some characteristics of the WBT and I'll post the paper here. Lots of work to do and I look forward to our continued collaboration.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Dean</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On
Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Philip Lloyd <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Dear Dean<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Crispin said it well:<br>“</span><span style="color:#1f497d;">The three low power metr</span><span style="color:#1f497d;">ics are invalid. The variables selected are inappropriately chosen. The calculated results are misleading and contrary to any claim [that] they provide guidance for product development or selection. We have to move
on.” <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;">I have looked at the simmering metrics in WBT 4.3.2 and can only concur. That is why I do not think we should waste much more time arguing about them – they are fundamentally wrong. Yes, stove designers need to be concerned with simmering and turndown; no, the WBT simmering metrics do not provide them with guidance, and can be positively misleading, which is worse.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;">Kind regards<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d;">Philip Lloyd<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Stoves [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Still<br><b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 06:38<br><b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Prof Loyd,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p
class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As I pointed out, when the stoves do the same work (hold the water at 97 C, for example) the stove with greater heat transfer efficiency scores better. Simmering tests are important and simmering is an important part of cooking.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The ISO process is creating new history and approaches to old problems. Whatever emerges will certainly be defensible as the new approaches are forged by consensus.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dean<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Philip Lloyd <<a rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;">I am concerned that this is turning into a very fruitless discussion.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;">On fundamental grounds the simmering test does not provide anything meaningful. Crispin has demonstrated that rigorously, and others have pointed out that the test can score an efficient stove poorly and an inefficient stove well, so it does not provide any useful measure. To go on defending the indefensible does not make sense, even if it did accentuate the need for turndown – but that need was always there, it was not the product of the WBT.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;">We need defensible measures of stove performance. Can we please turn our attention to developing those, and leave the indefensible to history?</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Prof Philip Lloyd</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Energy Institute</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Cape Peninsula University of Technology</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;"><a rel="nofollow">Tel:021</a> 460 4216</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Fax:<a rel="nofollow">021 460 3828</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d;">Cell: <a rel="nofollow">083 441 5247</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d;"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Stoves [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br><b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 02:26<br><b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Dear Dean, my reply is below:<u></u><u></u></p><pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Email: <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a rel="nofollow">+1-309-452-7072</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Website: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><u></u><u></u></pre><p class="MsoNormal">On 2/14/2015 1:06 PM, Dean Still wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Paul, <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">To do well on the Low Power Specific Consumption metrics the stove has to have a good Turn Down Ratio. In other words, the stove has to have high power and low power.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">I totally agree with this. But it is not the whole story of LPSC. Other factors influence LPSC, especially concerning the measurement of the variables that are used to make the calculation. These can include the insulation of the pot (incl. skirts), lid on pot, pot characteristics such as size, quantity of water in the pot at the start, and at the finish.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Specific Consumption is
based on how much energy was used to create simmered water. <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Simmered water is not created. It was already hot at the start of the simmer phase of testing. We are interested in how much energy is used to MAINTAIN the required temperature near boiling, but preferable about 3 degrees C lower than that boiling temperature. In fact, a super-insulative pot could need barely a flicker of a flame, and therefore even a well turned-down stove could cause the water to boil and evaporate. <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">If the stove only operates at high power there is more steam made and [at the end of testing] less simmered water remains....<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">that is true. but continue.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">..... so energy
was used to create less product.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Stove simmering is not creating a product. It is maintaining a temperature. The steam that is driven off does not represent loss of "product" which should be understood to be "cooked food" (and not meaning water that can be added to the pot by any attentive cook in a household.)<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I like Specific Consumption because it forces stove designers to make stoves that simmer successfully, not just boil water. <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">I agree. But the measurement procedures need to accurately document the ability to have that strong turn-down ratio, without calculations that can yield ambiguous or mis-leading results.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p
class="MsoNormal">For example, new TLUDs are better stoves because they have both high power and low power. In my opinion, the WBT 4.2.3 helped to create these more successful TLUDs.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">The cause-and-effect relationship is not totally clear. We have wanted turn-down capabilities in TLUDs for many years. <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As Sam says, we are working on a paper showing characteristics of the WBT 4.2.3 for the ISO work. Knowing the characteristics lets folks evolve a perfect test. <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">I question the above wording to "evolve a perfect test" (which is a test run, not the test procedures.) Maybe the statement should be that "knowing the characteristics let's folks operate their stoves in
special ways to obtain superior results that are not realistic for average users." OR "... let's folks 'game the metrics' to present 'perfected' test-results BASED ON OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND NOT ON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STOVES THEMSELVES." <br><br>OR it could be that flawed protocols /procedures (such as dividing by the volume of remaining water after simmering) can yield numerical results that are questionable and perhaps disadvantageous to the development of clean cookstoves. <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Sam is doing great work as he crunches all the data....<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">absolutely. But we are questioning if the numbers are as valid and useful as claimed.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> and gives ISO real numbers to work with in their
discussions.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br>Concluding statement: The topic of Low Power Specific Consumption is too important to just brush aside the stated issues. More "expert testimony" would be useful, including a mathematical analysis of the impact of the parts of the calculations. <br><br>Paul<br><br><br><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dean<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paul Anderson <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Dear Tom H., and to all who are interested in proper testing of stoves.<br><br>Your reply about your experiences is helpful. Sounds like you had qualified testing center do the testing, in accordance with the procedures that Crispin is questioning. Please send to me the full details. Could be off-list, but this is sufficiently important that we will want the full results known.<br><br>I have a specific case of official testing of one of my stoves with unfavorable results for Low-Heat Efficiency (simmering). I will add that into the list of examples and provide the details very soon.<br><br>I invite anyone else who has something to report about simmering efficiency to also send details of their experiences, either favorable or unfavorable or neutral. <br><br>The examination of the questionable methods about simmer efficiency
might take some days, maybe weeks. But not the months or years that this debate has been "simmering". <br><br>Remember: A testing center that properly conducts testing using an endorsed but possibly flawed procedure is NOT a culprit. The culprit is the testing protocols, <u>IF found to be faulty. </u>And we hope that the testing center people (employees and leaders) who understand the technical aspects of the calculations will be among those who can help resolve these serious issues.<br><br>Even those who developed protocols that are eventually shown to be faulty are not culprits. Mistakes can be made. However, the culprits can include those who advocate a protocol that he or she knows (or reasonably suspects) to be faulty.<br><br>Paul <u></u><u></u></p><pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Email: <a
rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a rel="nofollow">+1-309-452-7072</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Website: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><u></u><u></u></pre><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br><br><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></td> </tr> </tbody> </table></div></td></tr></table>