<div dir="ltr">Paul: <br><br>From the sidelines -- <br><br>It seems to me field testing of real stoves with real fuels used by real cooks ought to have produced some answer as to the limits of performance as expected by the user. <br><br>Can you or anybody else on this list tell me <br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><br>a) Whether such has been done for any project of more than 10,000 installations in a reasonably narrow location, using performance metrics as desired by the users and testing protocols that reflect these expectations? <div>b) Whether tens of millions of dollars spent by EPA on emissions research, or on epidemiology research by EPA and HHS (NIH, CDC) or the Gates Foundation, has found any insight into stove design parameters or testing protocols that may help further innovation? </div></blockquote><div><br>Doing robust monitoring in remote rural areas is quite expensive, as is continuing innovation for different shapes and sizes, cooking materials and types of cooking. Shouldn't those who hold Clean Cooking Summit and Clean Cooking Forum be responsible for generating a program just to this end? <br><br>Listening to the EPA webinar on Thursday morning, I heard that, with one exception, experiments on mutagenecity of solid fuel emissions were all based on 3SF (Three Stone Fire) and many fuels; the exception was a single stove. <br><br>I have been puzzled by claims by public health researchers that 3SF (or "rudimentary stoves") are the default . I have found zero evidence in support of this claim -- after all, there has been no survey of actual stoves in use - and zero evidence for related claims about "ventilation factors". <br><br>Pending confirmation that a sufficient number of "representative studies" over representative regions, fuels, cooking types and stove types, building types, wind conditions, have been done to inform the model for HAP concentrations, I believe I am entitled to skepticism about tall claims and rich theories. <br><br>Or, even leaving the WHO deceit on PM2.5 target per minute emission rate aside, I am safe in claiming that the ISO IWA declaration to the effect that the IWA was needed in order to respond an urgent market demand was a convenient lie. <br><br>Or similarly, the promise that "international standards" would instantly catalyze a market response in terms of reliable, affordable "clean cookstoves" was a false promise, another convenient lie. <br><br>Some of us have been fooled long enough. It is time to demand that those who spent the public's money - or tax-exempt contributions of private donors - show that they had run up alleys (say, TC-285) only to confirm that they were blind, or confess that they had lied. <br><br>The only research beneficiaries of the "clean cookstoves" cult so far, it seems, are those who are stuck in the "boil water" and IWA "performance metrics" theories, theories of no demonstrated validity. <br><br>Time to scale down expectations, demand transparency and accountability for all government and tax-exempt actors, or shut down GACC and begin a salvage operation. <br><br>Supporting ISO TC-285 generally, or WBT in particular, is immoral. Supporting epidemiology research and Gold Standard aDALYs snake oil is even worse. The deceit has come full circle - from EPA mythology to (hopefully) a termination of EPA and ANSI engagement with TC-285. </div><div><br></div><div>The truly faithful - GACC and D-Lab, I suppose - will wither away when monies run dry. They have used poor women for their convenience. <br><br>Nikhil<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Cheng, see below<span class=""><br>
<pre class="m_8551662512872128977moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_8551662512872128977moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_8551662512872128977moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
</span><span class=""><div class="m_8551662512872128977moz-cite-prefix">On 12/2/2017 7:48 PM, lh cheng wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>TLUD stove is efficient but fragile. this fragile concept
comes from a book "Antifragile", written by Nassim Nicholas
Taleb, like Dr Anderson, he is a Doctor and professor. He have
a good understanding of man-made artificial system, have deep
insight of the weakness of some man-made system, and he find a
good way to make money (of no small amount ) through it from
financial market. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fragile thing like Titanic ship, is high efficient,
beautiful, but there were big risks, which cannot be avoided
anyway, underneath the surface, when something wrong happened
eventually, inevitably, no one can afford it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I criticize TLUD stove here, not in malice, but try to make
something clear, maybe we can find out the hindrance of its
popularity, find a direction to improve it, and help the user
to use it in a safer way.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>TLUD stove separates gas combustion from gasification, and
is batch-feed, this combination create efficiency
and convenience, but also big risk. many thing can cause the
fire ( gas combustion ) go out, too much or too little gas,
too much or too little air, temperature too low, (too much or
too little prmary air, cause too much or too little gas, both
can lead to extinguish of the secondary combustion), too much
moisture in the fuel. once the fire go out, great smoke jet
out like crazy, poisonous, and the fuel is burning inside the
inner cylinder like crazy, no easy way to put out the first
combustion. it is very dangerous and bad situation for
housewife, neighbors scared by the big smoke, people even can
got killed by the poisonous gas. (when water can't low down
the charcoal temperature, water H2O can be turned into
poisonous CO gas immediately).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
The paragraph above does not express the reality of 40,000 TLUD
stove users living closely together in We s Bengal, India. the
concerns you raise can be presented in "theory", but that is ot the
reality. You are writing line the TLUD "deniers" of 5 to 12 years
ago. I heard that over and over. It is in the big New Yorker
magazine articles. Those people are not saying such things any
more, at least not publically or where their comments could leak
back to me. <br><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Traditional stove have no such thing, because it is not
batch-feeding, not burning in a tight closed space. and safer
in unexpected situation. it is robust. that's why people
prefer it over TLUD stove maybe.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have no clear idea yet, I just typed this message, not
thinking it thoroughly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
I accept your statement that you are basically not yet well informed
or with much experience. Stick with the TLUD stoves. They are
the wave of the future. They can become better, and that is where
you and others will eventually make important contributions. --
And there will be many who will sit on the sidelines. ---
Progress in the past few years has been great, and getting better
all the time. <br>
<br>
I'll sign this message to show my full bias. <br>
<br>
Dr TLUD<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>best regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-12-02 7:50 GMT+08:00 Nikhil
Desai <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-m_-5662447623776830519gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="georgia,
serif">Paul: <br>
<br>
Capital cost
of the stove
is a minor
issue; the
question is
whether the
users like and
use the stove.
This is why
contextual
definitions
matter,
because pellet
production
costs can vary
greatly
depending on
the
feedstock. <br>
<br>
A high capital
cost stove can
be given
one-time
subsidy -
should be
given to the
distributor if
one exists;
could be given
to a bulk
producer - on
the condition
that the
stoves are
found useful
and used.
Metrics of
efficiency and
hourly
emission rates
are just
smoke. <br>
<br>
I am glad to
read "</font>it
is something
about family,
a cultural
thing,
especially in
country
side." <font face="georgia,
serif">Gives
the lie to
physics-only
theories of
supposed
"stove
science". <span class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
</font></span></font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at
10:05 AM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Cheng and all, (and a
mention of Todd Albi). see below.<br>
<pre class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-m_-5662447623776830519gmail-m_-1066852585149645021moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-m_-5662447623776830519gmail-m_-1066852585149645021moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:%28309%29%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-m_-5662447623776830519gmail-m_-1066852585149645021moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="m_8551662512872128977gmail-m_-5662447623776830519gmail-m_-1066852585149645021moz-cite-prefix">On
11/29/2017 10:15 PM, lh cheng wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Another Chinese little project.
Surely, it is cookstove, not heater. Too
expensive, 1500RMB (230 USD), in rural
area, a big number, very big, no one
buy, not even one, in rural area. For
user, many uncertainties to use new type
of stove. if free of charge, a
trustworthy friend who is an expert
about this stove, that might be fine.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I was wondering about the price of that pellet
burner stove. Yes, it is expensive, but
expensive is a relative term. It could be
imported into America where $230 is
inexpensive, but the price here would be so
much higher and it would then be expensive
here. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>stove thing should be open-source (
just like Dr Anderson's Champion Stove
), DIY, or made by acquaintance, it is
something about family, a cultural
thing, especially in country side. In
city, electricity or LPG is enough.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Is there any prospect in China for DIY. And
what would be the acceptance of a stove made
with thin metal? Generalizing, it seems that
heavy construction of stoves is the standard
in China. Todd Albi might be able to shed
some light on this.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>a good approach for stove design
maybe is that, basic knowledge of stove
design spread among people, and people
help each other.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What do you have in mind? in the context of
China? I have difficulty imagining stove
design work in China outside of the factory
context.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>concerning "stove intervention",
during 1959-1961 in China, more than 30
millions of people died because a stove
intervention movement. and people have
memories.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Please provide more information about this
statement about 30 million deaths.<br>
<br>
Welcome to the world of the Stoves Listserv.
We appreciate your insights.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best regards </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>