<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Ron: <br><br>What a delight - to get a poll from ETHOS folks whom you call "lab fanatics". (I didn't, in case list members get a different idea.) <br><br>Do us all a favor and </div><div><br></div><div>a) Report to the list which ETHOS participants did which stove tests in the field that informed the WHO "emissions database" that you seem to know so much and are so passionate about (without which the GBD claims fall flat and so do WHO IAQ Guidelines). </div><div><br></div><div>b) Take a poll of the first 30 folks who have done the following: used the WBT of IWA version over the last five years to perform field tests for "baseline" and "improved" biomass (excl. charcoal) stoves in at least five different locations, for at least two weeks at a time and at least six months apart, and covering at least 100 household users for fuel consumption and PM2.5 emission rates. Ask them what the value of this WBT protocol is, whether they considered any adjustments or also used another test method. I assume they would all have had lab tests in the first place. <br><br>If you can do (b), ETHOS folks are not "lab fanatics". Whatever their verdict on lab tests of these performance metrics, let it stand. It's not as if anybody gave ETHOS the remit to rule the world of cooking and run roughshod on cooks and cook designers. Their ethos is admirable but the pathos is sad. </div><div><br></div><div>And if you cannot find such 30 people, I call all of them to endorse Xavier's advocacy appeal to GACC. <br><br>Mind you, my call to drop fuel consumption and emission rate testing in labs is different from Xavier's. I merely hold that performance metrics should be set "contextually" -- after all, there is no point in saving "free fuel" and what you so passionately call "renewable biomass". And there is also no point in reducing emission rates for some arbitrary period to some awfully low levels if there is enough ventilation, the fuel is relatively high quality, ambient air quality is good, and combustion conditions are "right".<br><br>Xavier asked how much time and money has been wasted on dead-end stoves just because the performance metrics were tested in lab and failed the test of reproducibility and, what is worse, failed the customers (the funders of tests as well as the cooks we all pretend to hold so dear to our hearts). <br><br>Abuse of science in the name of the poor is offensive. Leave GACC to do gassing, and stop lab fanaticism. </div><div><br></div><div>Nikhil</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">(India +91) 909 995 2080 </span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><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"><div><br></div><div>Frank </div><div><div class="gmail-h5"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:13 PM, <a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_4708188612360948121Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:12pt"><div>List, cc Nikhil<br></div><div><br></div><div> I submit this is both a first for this list and a best explanation of Nikhil's stove outlook: </div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">"<em>Another reason the good old performance metrics of fuel consumption and emission rates need to be junked. What matters is how the stoves are used in practice, not what some fanatics come up with in labs. "</em></span></div><div><span style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> Who agrees with Nikhil? I'll report (possibly tomorrow) from ETHOS on the views there of the "lab fanatics"</span></div><div><span style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">Ron</span></div><hr id="gmail-m_4708188612360948121zwchr"><div style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><b>From: </b>"Traveller" <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com" target="_blank">miata98@gmail.com</a>><br><b>To: </b>"Frans Peeters" <<a href="mailto:peetersfrans@telenet.be" target="_blank">peetersfrans@telenet.be</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a>><br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:32:07 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>[Stoves] Steam cooking (Re: Frans)<br><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail-m_4708188612360948121gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Frans: <br><div><br></div>Thank you for bringing up steam cooking. Is "ambient steam cooking" different from "pressure steam cooking"? <br><div><br></div>Liquid/gas fuel stoves with pressure cookers transformed the lives of about a billion cooks so far. <br><div><br></div>I cannot say the same of biomass household stoves, but it should be possible. <br><div><br></div>I find your "1 kg wood = 4 kWh" incomprehensible. That's just energy content. Delivered to pot, who knows? <br><div><br></div>I think the bigger point is, even a biomass stove that facilitates use of pressure cookers makes a huge difference in time and energy spent. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>Another reason the good old performance metrics of fuel consumption and emission rates need to be junked. What matters is how the stoves are used in practice, not what some fanatics come up with in labs. <br><div><br></div>Nikhil</div><div dir="ltr"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>