<div dir="ltr">Dear Frank: <br><br>Cooking IS a scientific enterprise. Individual cooks are proud, arrogant, domineering species - the kind that every now and then, say, "Eat it if you care, or get out!" <br><br>From their perspective, and in a broader sense, cooking is a scientific exploration all life long into foods and fuels. I can boast I managed to introduce an over-inquisitive child all topics from sciences to social sciences and humanities, just talking in the kitchen. <br><br>But note I said it is NOT a scientist enterprise. Individual scientists are subject to the pitfalls of scientism - namely, thinking that models are reality, that peer approval is validation of assumptions and estimates, and that he presumption of honesty entitles scientists to play all kinds of ideological sports. <br><br>I have probably generated some number in the past that may well have become a "lookup" estimate. I went through the rigors of energy statistics for several years and used to know people in USDOE/EIA, the UN, and some national agencies or research groups with whose help I learned to discern the usefulness of "lookup" numbers. <br><br>I don't care about efficiency scoring and rating, so it doesn't matter to me what the HHV and LHV numbers for fuels are this or that. <br><br>However, fuel quality (moisture, vol matter, shape, consistency) matter, along with operating practices, when it comes to pollutant loads. (Concentrations and exposure are another issue, depending on circulation and mobility, and disease quite another.) <br><br>The simplistic equation of emissions with disease is not science; it is ideology. Some emission factors are cooked up with WBT, but no emission rates, nor any concentrations. <br><br>Do you see the conceit and deceit of so-called "science" here? <br><br>We have no idea how the "three stone fire" varies. (And yes, it does; arrangement of bricks or shape of an in situ stove is a very important part of an experienced cook's repertoire of skills. Over time, younger women have sometimes lost these skills if wood fires are less and less important, but I have observed working class women in cities and older women in villages design the fire and arrange the wood in a way that "works" for them. They use different fuels, different height of the stove, different widths according to the vessel and the type of cooking. <br><br>If we understood the inherent economics of women - literate or not - we tend to regard as ignorant, uninformed, victimized, too easily succumbing to premature deaths from solid fuels, we might understand the economics of cooking. <br><br>Because I think there is much more to "traditional" stoves than inefficiency and smoke; there are "practical" adjustments to access to wood fuels, ownership of dung, as also family size and composition, means of employment and income, personal conditions such a pregnancies, illnesses, aging. <br><br>Jut my hypothesis. I have no publishable proof that I can round up the peers to sign off on. The idea simply is - as Cecil says and Crispin emphasizes - that observing the cooks and cooking may tell us not just about how to design a contextually relevant, usable stove or a mix of stoves but also how much fuel they use, where they gather or buy, how they store it, and how this might vary across customers (so we can identify customer classes). <br><br>It is not that somehow having a survey instrument with 100 questions will give all the information needed. This is how people who do LSMS (Living Standards Measurement Survey) and DHS (Demographic and Health Survey) or the professoriat think - that there must be comparable data across different geographies. Useful for creating tables and doing regressions; mindlessness compounded. Propagation of errors and propagation of ignorance via cite-o-logy. <br><br>My contention has long been that such surveys yield very little useful information about fuels and stove types,, time efficiency at various stages of the fuel cycle, or about foods. If the villages I have seen in India over the decades - the only environment I have a long-term perspective on - food types and costs, dietary preferences, and relative economics of fuels and associated stoves - keep changing. WHO type of "data" - % of households cooking with solid fuels - don't say anything but are instead made to say foolish generalities and subjected to computational wizardry to concoct glorious numbers. <br><br>Is this science? I have rarely seen actual measured data on fuel types and quantities combined with measured "useful energy". All we have is some lab test results on a) different fuels tested on efficiency with Three Stone Fire (but not how much of that fuel is used where and how, and b) a "standard" fuel tested on different designs of "improved stove" (anything other than a Three Stone Fire). [There is one exception to b) that I recently came across and will post it].<br><br>Since data gathering - even determining what questions are contextually relevant for what objective - is costly and takes experienced observers who have learnt more than what academics have propounded, I can't tell how this tragedy of scientism can be brought to an end. <br><br>I make a serious, sincere plea to you, Crispin, Cecil , Ron, and whosoever is willing to engage: please let me know what all we "know" in quantitative terms on efficiencies of, and emissions from, fuels and stoves in actual use that is not dependent on WBT that is fuel-free, cook-free, facts-free? <br><br>If these claims are based on WBT, I submit it is another case of cart before the horse, pecuniary worship of ideologies with "feel good" appeal to the uninformed rich. <br><br>Nikhil<br><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> </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 16, 2017 at 5:46 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1">Dear Nikhil,</font><br>
</p><span class="">
<br>
<div class="m_9028381996029123079moz-cite-prefix">On 12/16/17 1:11 PM, Nikhil Desai
wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Frank:</div>
<div><br>
</div><span class="">
<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>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The USCC used 'stakeholders?' to develop the test methods and
interpretations. Regulated itself regarding certified labs. EPA
required the heavy metals and bacteria reuirements. The labels were
also regulated under Gov. regulations. Canada had different
regulations for metals etc. and each State could require more
stricter regulations. But the USCC (like a group we could make up)
ran the program. <br><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
This was easy for the old WBT. They used a 'lookup' value for the
fuel and this one value used for all the biomass fuels. Very easy. :
)<span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
Cooking is not a scientist enterprise at all. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
It is if you look at it from a bigger picture. <br>
<snip><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Yes - lets do that!<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
Nikhil <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
Frank</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div><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_9028381996029123079m_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_9028381996029123079m_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_9028381996029123079m_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_9028381996029123079m_1053680817048434996moz-signature" cols="72">--
Frank Shields
444 Main Street Apt. 4205
Watsonville, CA 95076
<a href="tel:%28831%29%20246-0417" value="+18312460417" target="_blank">(831) 246-0417</a> cell
<a class="m_9028381996029123079m_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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="m_9028381996029123079moz-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_9028381996029123079moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a></pre>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>