<div dir="ltr">Frank: <br><br>I am not sure I understand all your ideas, but you seem to be pushing me toward stronger opinions as I see more from you. <br><br>In the example below, I would add fuel chemistry; "good fuel" part is contextual. Say, if I were to take over the cooking market in a given geography completely - 100,000 stoves of various sizes and shapes replaced by, or supplemented by, 100,000 new ones. I am sure biomass is going to vary and so are stoves - in some Indian villages, one stove and fuel for making tea, another to cook animal feed, and a third one for heating water, a fourth one for daily dinners, with each of them some other use other than the primary ones. <div><br></div><div>So, to establish market prospects in a given area, you would have to test maybe six kinds of fuels and four major uses to accommodate in two "intervention designs". <br><br>Hard work to define the geographic limits of a market, but I can help with that if you or anybody had a new project area. (I would advise against going to a new area on your own without doing lots of prior consultations.) <br><br>So far so good. <br><br>Then you blow me away with your view - "Whats important is what the end user decides important. Now all steps are controlled and should be repeatable."<br><br>This used to be at least an ideal if not the standard - decades ago. It is still the ideal in design and construction of kitchen. Back 60 years ago, when one pair of my grandparents moved from one village to another and got a different accommodation from Indian Railways, the fixed wood stove would be rebuilt according to my grandmother's wishes, and other wood, charcoal and later kerosene, portable stoves got their places assigned. <br><br>This is also what I remember of a few stoves projects that had World Bank finance in the 1990s. <br><br>Then, in my thinking (maybe I got the history wrong), came the onslaught of EPA consultants. Emission rates became EPA's excuse to demonize solid fuels, something they had been doing in the previous quarter century. Not that they cared to learn anything about cooking, I mean making tea. </div><div><br></div><div>There was a legitimate complaint - I remember mine too, characterizing the efficiency metric but not bothering with indoor air pollution an equivalent of the environmentalist dogma -"Kill people, save the earth!"<br><br>These days, with the babble of "truly health protective" Tier 4 fuel/stoves and "no stacking", it's more like, "Cook up lives saved, bankrupt the treasuries."<br><br>Hence GACC and Gold Standard, and hence the ISO show of "international standards"and Tiers which have no rationale and have no theory of change. <br><br>And suddenly you come up with the revolutionary advice "Because no-one else is doing the same system you will not be able to compare to other systems. But you might be able to improve your own. And there are lots of measurements for the fuel that can be made (not described here) but use simple test methods and no need for a real lab. Perhaps just some basic equipment." <br><br>To me, that is a lot better way of proving and improving a combustion device than to game the WBT. If one of these systems were to sell on its own, without the blessings of professors and the customers happy, more such stoves would be sold. <br><br>Would certainly displease the theologians of stove science, health science, and implementation science. So much is riding on fooling some of the people long enough. <br><br>Nikhil<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="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><font face="georgia, serif"> <br></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>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Frank Shields <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1">Hi Michael, Stovers;<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">This is a good example where the 6-Box system
would be useful. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Set up the system so it makes good tea. The
process is to control the variables and modify one at a time to
improve the process. There are lots of steps you can do but
would take some time, test methods and a little equipment. All
simple but not good at this time. Once you have a good fuel,
good technique, and can produce a good cup of tea I suggest the
following:</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box-1) Observe the fuel for size, moisture,
cleanliness etc. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box - 2: Record the process loading the
combustion chamber.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box- 3: Record the combustion chamber; stove
model etc.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box-4: Establish info regarding the utensils
used; metal, size, heavy-light etc.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box-5: Record the process; stirring, amount of
water, amount of tea, sugar added etc.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Box-6: Determine a good repeatable Completion
Point. Perhaps water just starts to boil or i can hold my hand
on the side of the pot for just one second.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">You need to know what an improvement would look
like for you. Quicker tea but not care of amount of fuel. Save
on fuel, walk away with less manipulation, air quality, amount
of char left, quality of char produced, etc. Whats important is
what the end user decides important. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"> <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Now all steps are controlled and should be
repeatable. You can change one Box at a time and see if that
improves the process. Use dryer wood or stir more frequently.
Use a lighter pot or less water. Add wood more frequent in
smaller quantities - try to get the best conditions. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Because no-one else is doing the same system you
will not be able to compare to other systems. But you might be
able to improve your own. And there are lots of measurements for
the fuel that can be made (not described here) but use simple
test methods and no need for a real lab. Perhaps just some basic
equipment. <br>
</font></p>
<br>
<p><font size="+1">Frank</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Gabilan Laboratory<br>
</font></p><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<p><font size="+1"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"> <br>
</font></p>
<p><br></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>