<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class="">Nikhil,</span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class="">you say:</span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" class="">In the interim period, “better solid fuel stoves” can and should be marketed, without any mumbo-jumbo of WHO IAQ Guidelines or standards, and the jiggery-pokery of "box models" for concentrations, HAPIT for aDALY.</font><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Perhaps the part I don’t understand: If we put our ‘clients’ into groups we might have something like this:</div><div class="">A) the poorest of the poor: no electricity, no LPG, no pellets, very little outside support, very little biomass available, perhaps burning dung or rice hulls etc.</div><div class="">B) has pellets and/or limited electricity and/or limited available LPG and/or prepared fuels</div><div class="">C) has all</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Are there still a lot of people still in group A? Is that group growing or more of them going into group B? Now this would be a useful study. : ) </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This group (on this list serve) is all about helping group A survive or advance to group B. Our stoves should be designed and testing accordingly using their biomass etc. When people talk about using pellets or prepared biomass they are only helping group B. If you talk about your stove running on pellets (Paul!) and you want to help group A then you need to include and provide a years supply pellets in the sale of your stove. Or you just market to group B. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But WE are interested in helping group A - correct? No more talk of fans, pellets, or LPG unless you plan to supply the extras needed to catapult them into group B. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Improving group A stoves is what we need to do.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Frank ` </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks<br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Frank</div><div class="">Frank Shields</div><div class="">Gabilan Laboratory</div><div class="">Keith Day Company, Inc.</div><div class="">1091 Madison Lane</div><div class="">Salinas, CA 93907</div><div class="">(831) 246-0417 cell</div><div class="">(831) 771-0126 office</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:fShields@keithdaycompany.com" class="">fShields@keithdaycompany.com</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" class="">franke@cruzio.com</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 8, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com" class="">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Frank: <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You have an excellent statement of a contextualized problem: "We<span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""> have a situation where the 1) Combustion Chamber is fixed and 2) the available wild biomass to be used is fixed. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN with what we have."<br class=""><br class="">And you "</span><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">we optimize them for the best using available wild biomass that we prepare from the pile of using the equipment they have."</span><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class=""></span><br class="">I wish this is how the problem of small-scale direct combustion (including small gasifiers for power) were defined for every district in India. <br class=""><br class="">Sometimes the biomass is plenty and goes "waste", sometimes it is quite costly to obtain. It's a matter of land rights and access. <br class=""><br class="">I also agree "They need competition" and "<span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">Quit complaining and get thinking of alternative uses for all the money. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">Its stupid to require the air be below a specified particle concentration when we are not willing to wire in electricity and handout microwave ovens."<br class=""></span><br class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">Well, UN Foundation, Inc. also has a parallel initiative to GACC, and the GACC CEO may also be the CEO of that -- SE4All (Sustainable Energy for All). It is about providing electricity to everybody. Again there is some Tier dogma about quality and quantity of electricity WITH OUT ANY IDEA OF THE CONTEXT of productive and income capacities. </span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">But in some dream world, electricity will solve the household emissions problem. Whether that will make air cleaner, for whom, and save whose lives -- all that will take another boondoggle like ISO IWA for cookstoves. </span><br class=""><br class="">India has a strategy - <font size="2" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class=""><a href="http://niti.gov.in/content/electricity-and-clean-cooking-strategy-india" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="">Electricity and Clean Cooking Strategy for India</a>. In the interim period, "better solid fuel stoves" can and should be marketed, without any mumbo-jumbo of WHO IAQ Guidelines or standards, and the jiggery-pokery of "box models" for concentrations, HAPIT for aDALYs.</font><br class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class="">Nikhil<br class=""></span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class="">--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br class=""><i class=""> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Frank Shields <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank" class="">franke@cruzio.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Hi Nikhil,<br class=""><div class="">
<div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="m_-6454427073594612001Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 7, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-6454427073594612001Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Frank: <br class=""><br class="">Is WBT - or any such non-representative proxy for cooking and space heating - the only way to determine if some combination of fuel and device is “clean"? <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">FRANK: To determine if a stove does its job ‘clean’ must be determined at the end when the meal is served. We are going through the 6 Box system and starting with the fuel. We can determine if process is going as it should by testing downstream without going all the way to the end - eliminating many variables found along the way. </div><div class="">Box 1) Fuel</div><div class="">Box 2 Fuel introduction</div><div class="">Box 3 Combustion chamber</div><div class="">Box 4 Cooking utensils</div><div class="">Box 5 Cooking procedure </div><div class="">Box 6 Task completion</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">You do seem to agree that there is no [FRANK(rarely)] ”clean fuel” on its own, just a combination of particular type of fuel and combustion device, operated under some design basis - “biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with proper combustion characteristics known suitable for a specific stove.” <br class="">FRANK Correct<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><span class="">But then you say, “We cannot complain about what other groups are doing with all the money allocated to them for improving biomass stoves and cleaner air until we give them a direction to go in."<br class=""></span>FRANK Correct<br class=""></div></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><span class="">I am afraid that is naive. <br class=""></span>FRANK Wrong<br class=""></div></blockquote><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">For one, if giving directions for "cleaner air" means not just emission rate testing for representative combinations of fuels, devices, cuisines in lab and in field but going through the theology of the "box paradigm" -- what Harold calls the "conflation" of effects, without going into the diversity of contexts - all you will get is more of the same. ISO TC 285 to TC 2850. <br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">The other reason is that "cleaner air" is not simply cooked up in boxes by EPA and BAMG. It is the exposure profile for all air pollutants - not just "criteria pollutants" in the USEPA lingo - and indeed all health risks that determine the health consequences. <br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As Cecil and the ESMAP report I cited three months ago assert, "contextual" is everything. Until such a time that biomass stoves provide as much versatility and control, and fit in the ever-changing time demands on poor women, to speak of "clean air" from domestic stoves is paramount delusion. <br class=""><br class="">If nothing else, you will also have to grant GACC/BAMG demands that any switchover from "dirty fuel" to "clean fuel" (with stoves) be "permanent, exclusive, and sustained". That is no stacking. That is the violation of a cook's privacy and preferences just so GACC and NIH can cook up "evidence base" of "health effects of clean cooking combinations"?? <br class=""><br class="">I suppose many stovers - in universities and outside - did give direction at the ISO/IWA back a few years ago (my citation in the post in response to Harold earlier). <br class=""><br class="">Air pollution control in developing countries is not a lab job. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">FRANK: Nikhil - I don’t care about clean air. We have a situation where the 1) Combustion Chamber is fixed and 2) the available wild biomass to be used is fixed. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN with what we have. If five combustion chambers are tested (stoves) we optimize them for the best using available wild biomass that we prepare from the pile of using the equipment they have. They are now ‘clean’ as they can be. If one is cleaner than the others they get the bid for sale. (and fuel availability and quantity is considered). Passes some EPA, BANG, ISO, GACC, NIH, IWA or whatever - WHO CARES when the choice is between Best we can do OR Dirty. </div><span class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">In case of stoves, it has been a hack job.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">They need competition. We researchers and scientist give them NONE. We need some creative ideas and risk takers at the University level. No guts: no glory. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Heres an idea:</div><div class="">Helium Surrogate:</div><div class="">Get the equipment and see if it can be made to work for what we want. Bleed out gases just before the secondary and determine the distribution and mass balance from the biomass being burned. Determine the best composition for gases to burn the hottest and cleanest. Could end up being a complete waste of a few 100K USD if it doesn’t. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Heres an idea:</div><div class="">Make pellets starting at high quality in a stove proved to burn them cleanly and hot. Make a series of pellets with: a) increasing ash, b) increasing lipids (pine pitch), c) decreasing carbon density d) increasing moisture e) increasing size f) decreasing size g) increasing lignin etc. etc. </div><div class="">Determine the concentration where they start to fail air quality and/or heat. Measure using Helium Surrogate (if it works) the change in gas composition going into the secondary. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Perhaps we can optimize the wild biomass used by measure of the composition going into the secondary once we know what to look for - or used to problem solve a poor running combustion chamber. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If lipids are found to be a problem develop a test procedure that works in the range we need to look at. We need test procedures for the components found to be important. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Then when this is finalized we work on Box 2 :) Fuel Introduction into the combustion chamber. Pellets can be feed in many different ways. Sticks introduced at a rate determine (from the above) to be optimum. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Quit complaining and get thinking of alternative uses for all the money. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Its stupid to require the air be below a specified particle concentration when we are not willing to wire in electricity and handout microwave ovens. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Frank</div></font></span><span class=""><div class=""> </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">An inside job. <br class=""><br class="">Time to end the pretense.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Nikhil<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_-6454427073594612001gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""> </div><div style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class=""><i class=""> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Frank Shields <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank" class="">franke@cruzio.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><span class="m_-6454427073594612001gmail-"><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 7, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank" class="">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-6454427073594612001gmail-m_4664413524182151757Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="m_-6454427073594612001gmail-m_4664413524182151757WordSection1" style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" class="">Dear Stovers<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" class="">What on earth is a “clean fuel”?<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" class="">Thanks<br class="">Crispin</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Its biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with proper combustion characteristics known suitable for a specific stove. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We cannot complain about what other groups are doing with all the money allocated to them for improving biomass stoves and cleaner air until we give them a direction to go in. Not having a direction and complaining just goes in circles - as we have been doing for YEARS! The only direction (for now) is “What Preparation is Required for a Biomass to work in Paul’s Champion TLUD Stove? And How Best is That Done?”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There is a big pile of biomass from a local community - what do we need to know about it and how best to size it for the Champion? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We need (1) an equipped PRIVATE lab (no Universities) (2) creative personal (3) the stove (4) the biomass (5) money - and funders need to know this is research and not all research ends in grand success (as required by Universities). Ten steps backwards and one forward. The one’s forward add up over time. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Frank</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div> </div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></span></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>