<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Frank:</div><div><br></div><div>It gets complicated, way complicated, very soon, from public policy perspective. Unless you narrow the inquiry down to specific location and period. <br><br>It is not often that you can control fuel quality and reliability of supplies. People vary crops and they also vary trees. Who collects and delivers what biomass is an issue of land rights; access to public trees for trimming, pruning, and total taking down of the tree; opportunity cost of labor and capital for establishing and sustaining a fuel supply enterprise; and, of course, sales and service network for new types of stoves. <br><br>Cooking is not a scientist enterprise at all. Scientists will bake only their cakes and well they should. If they capture and occupy the kitchen, poor people will be thrown out as they have been for the most part. <br><br>The challenge is not only user-centred, reiterative engineering, but placing it in the institutional and cultural context. Scientists, cooks, policymakers, lawyers, financiers all need to come together to make a promising project. <br><br>Nikhil <br><br><br> </div><div><br>On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:41 PM, Frank Shields <<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<p><font size="+1">Dear Nikhil,</font></p>
<p>My main issue is that we need to look at the complete picture of
a receiving site and approach it like scientist. We will not
achieve cleaner air, fuel savings and such until we do. We need to
separate variables (as I have) and control them. Not as complex as
it seems. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_1053680817048434996moz-cite-prefix">On 12/14/17 5:24 PM, Nikhil Desai
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Frank: <br>
<br>
<snip><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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have a (starter) test package for biomass fuels. I suggest the
stoves be sold with a description of the fuel that should be used
and upper and lower limits. Then suggested means of delivering that
fuel to combustion chamber. That covers Box-1, Box-2 and the stove
Box-3. Many different Rocket type stoves will take the same fuel.
And likely the same with TLUD types. Then the wild biomass is
collected at the receiving site and prepared for the stoves. It is
tested to see how well it fits for the stove. The rest is for Cecil
and like. There need be a place where the biomass is collected and
prepared (tested) and then delivered. Nothing improves unless the
proper fuel is used in the right stove. <br>
<br>
Most stoves that use stick fuel (rocket) or chipped fuel (TLUD) will
not need a lot of testing. Acorns, grasses, pressed and briquets,
and odd fuels will require more testing and, I think, this program
more helpful. <br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm thinking if fuel is optimized and delivered stacked to the user
the user will be pleased and more likely to go along with the
program (Cecil?). And using the right fuel results in positive
change over established. <br>
<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I suggest to Michael the 6-Box system. But because no one is using
it his single point data will not be of much use. We need many tests
for comparison and improving. I'm thinking each receiving site
(village?) has its own fuel and own tasks to complete. If the goal
is to improve a Village then the approach must be village wide. Help
provide the people with the fuel and combustion chamber that will
best complete the task they want done. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>To me, that is a lot better way of proving and improving a
combustion device than to game the WBT. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The WBT went from fuel to task. That is good. But the method of
collecting and interpretating data produced was way off base IMO. A
good test if completely redone. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><snip><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Nikhil</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="georgia, serif"> </font><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div class="m_1053680817048434996gmail_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 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="m_1053680817048434996gmail-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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="m_1053680817048434996moz-signature" cols="72">--
Frank Shields
444 Main Street Apt. 4205
Watsonville, CA 95076
<a href="tel:(831)%20246-0417" value="+18312460417" target="_blank">(831) 246-0417</a> cell
<a class="m_1053680817048434996moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a></pre>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><franke.vcf></div></blockquote></div></div>