<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Stovers,<br>
<br>
Nikhil wrote today 2 August 2017:
<blockquote type="cite"><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Let me quote a paper </span><a
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082610000311"
target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8px">"Fuel use and emissions
performance of fifty cooking stoves in the laboratory and
related benchmarks of performance</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px"> Energy for Sustainable Development,
Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages 161–171. </span><a
id="gmail-m_1797863452433115914gmail-m_5391486063193566494m_-347921276260181133gmail-m_2474870622504503967m_2727990310147322201gmail-ddDoi"
class="gmail-m_1797863452433115914gmail-m_5391486063193566494m_-347921276260181133gmail-m_2474870622504503967m_2727990310147322201gmail-S_C_ddDoi"
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.06.002"
target="_blank"
style="color:rgb(49,108,157);font-family:arial,helvetica,"lucida
sans unicode","microsoft sans serif","segoe
ui symbol",stixgeneral,"cambria math","arial
unicode
ms",sans-serif;font-size:13px;text-decoration-line:none;border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline">http://dx.doi.org/10.<wbr>1016/j.esd.2010.06.002</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">.</span>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">.. The authors claim in the
Abstract: <br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Performance of 50 different stove designs was
investigated using the 2003 University of
California-Berkeley (UCB) revised Water Boiling Test (WBT)
Version 3.0 to compare the fuel use, carbon monoxide (CO)
and particulate matter (PM) emissions produced. While these
laboratory tests do not necessarily predict field
performance for actual cooking, t<u>he elimination of
variables such as fuel, tending, and moisture content,
helps to isolate and compare the technical properties of
stove design</u>.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
It stretches credulity that stove designs are tested on the basis
of excluding fuel, tending, and moisture content. This is
engineering madness. Standard fuel, standard pots, standard water,
standard field conditions (wind, humidity, temperature,
ventilation). Not cook. </blockquote>
Let's look at the timeline of that report:<br>
1. Publication in 2010. --- In modern-era cookstove chronology,
that is now rather old.<br>
<br>
2. Did you notice that the WBT version was from 2003? (that would
now be called "ancient"). There is a story behind the half-decade
between 2003 and 2010.<br>
<br>
3. From my memory (so others can correct me with documentation and
rememberances, if needed), the 50 stove study was conducted in about
2004 - 05 (maybe in to 2006??). It was conducted by Aprovecho,
with funding from EPA or PCIA (or ???). I saw and read a draft
(nearly final, I think) back around 2005 or 06. But there were
delays. Maybe questions about funds for pubishing?? Anyway, in
these types of reasearch with grant money, the project file is not
closed until results are released, in this case a book. By 2010,
the results were already old. I have a copy somewhere, filed away.
It has historical value to show the thinking of the early times
(2005, not 2010). And that is what Nikhil pointed out with his
comments about: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[Quote from 2010 report]: While these
laboratory tests do not necessarily predict field performance for
actual cooking, t<u>he elimination of variables such as fuel,
tending, and moisture content, helps to isolate and compare the
technical properties of stove design</u>.
<div><br>
</div>
[Nikhil's 2017 comment]: It stretches credulity that stove
designs are tested on the basis of excluding fuel, tending, and
moisture content. This is engineering madness. Standard fuel,
standard pots, standard water, standard field conditions (wind,
humidity, temperature, ventilation). Not cook. </blockquote>
Perhaps in 2017, we (the "stove-study community") are moving away
from those former practices. The testing proceedures today are
certainly not as rigid as in the past (even pellet fuels can be
allowed in testing <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>:-)</span></span>),
but much of the old ways still remain. One example is the allowance
of "stove tending" to the extreme of the Rocket-stove practice of
spacing sawn wood that is advanced inch by inch (maybe cm by cm?) to
keep just the tips burning. Stove testers were (and are) trained
and then sit there for the entire test (with the stove conveniently
positioned at eye-level), nursing the fuel supply into the fire
zone. Nothing at all like the realities in the kitchens.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>