<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Paul, Crispin:</div><div><br></div><div>Method is secondary to purpose. <br><br>The claim that of "robust and diagnostic results with which to compare fuel/cookstove technologies" begs the question "to what end?"<br><br>Is it simply axiomatic that "Cookstove designers and programme managers who wish to improve the design of existing and new cookstoves, and to promote efficient fuel/cookstove technologies based on sound laboratory tests can use the principles explored in this study."?<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><div><br>Whatever happened to "pleasing the cook" so that the product designed is useful and used?<br><br>What is the basis for the faith that "sound" lab testing leads to popular solid-fuel stoves for the poor? Or are we most interested in pleasing peers and impressing grant-makers via "international" tear-ratings?<br><br>That unsound testing methods - fuel-free, cook-free, context-free - have failed to produce reliable results is one thing; whether energy efficiency and hourly average emission rates, even when reliably predicted by sound testing methods, lead to stoves that are used more widely and rapidly is quite another.<br><br></div><div>Especially with purchased fuels such as coal and charcoal, with dual purpose (cooking and heating) application, what sense does it make to compute and compare just thermal efficiencies and emission rates? It's not as if primary biomass for charcoal - or coal - is going to disappear any time soon; just bring them from longer distances. Nor is some "health protective" emission rate going to reduce all pollutant ingestion automatically.<br><br>What do we know about just who cares and ought to, based on what theories of resource economics or consumer behavior? Or, for that matter, of aDALYs?<br><br>I think stove science should be answerable to cooks. "Culturally appropriate" testing is not enough; culturally and geographically appropriate performance metrics are necessary.<br><br>I propose an innovative, anti-scientific alternative: create user satisfaction ratings from field evaluation of market shares for fuels and stoves.<br><br>And a radical idea - "clean" is a subjective criterion. User air matters, not academic airs.<br><br>Nikhil</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Stovers,<br>
<br>
I have read major parts, but not all of the publication, so my
comments could be incorrect or insufficient. But here goes:<br>
<br>
<a class="m_7460860157080993652moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/project/Development-of-Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-Testing-Methods" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/<wbr>project/Development-of-<wbr>Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-<wbr>Testing-Methods</a><br>
<br>
1. Congratualations to Tafadzwe (known to his friends as Taffy, but
maybe with a different spelling) and his three co-authors (including
Crispin). This publication should be studied widely. (Crispin,
please be sure that the co-authors receive this message and can send
replies to the Stoves Listserv directly or via you.)<br>
<br>
2. It is about stove testing METHODS. Key is the water heating
test (WHT) as an alternative to the water boiling test (WBT).
Bring the pot of water to 80 deg C and then put on another pot to
continue heating, repeat as long as the test time. Also of
importance is that the stoves are on a sensitive scale that can
reveal the weight loss (fuel used) as the test progresses.<br>
<br>
3. The changing of the pot of water means no intentional changing
of the power of the stove during the test. That is, there is no
"simmering" stage (which is a major contention in the WBT). And no
"fiddling" with the turn-down abilities. A stove can be run at
high power, and again SEPARATELY at middle or low power. But not
mixing the power levels. This is especially applicable to stoves
that do not have much or any turn-down ability. (see discussion of
stoves below).<br>
<br>
(Comment: Regardless of whether the WBT is used or not, the WHT
appears to me to be logical and useful.)<br>
<br>
4. The title of the publication is:
<blockquote type="cite">Heterogeneous Stove Testing Methods for the
Evaluation of Domestic Solid-Fuel Cookstoves</blockquote>
I am not so sure that the word "heterogeneous" is the right term,
but that could just be my personal opinion.<br>
The words "culturally appropriate" (in the Subject line of the email
from Crispin) were not seen in the publication (I did not see them)
and the publication does not make an issue about culturally
appropriate testing of cooking methods.<br>
<br>
5. "Solid-Fuel" is a key term, and in this publication does NOT
refer to wood or dry biomass. The fuels discussed are charcoal and
coal. That is fine, but they are a limited subset of the varieties
of solid fuels. <br>
<br>
6. Therefore, the stoves tested included 2 charcoal stoves, a
coal-fueled downdraft gasifier, and the common South African Imbuela
(bucket burning of coal) that was IGNITED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
The traditional way is to ignite at the bottom (call it bottom lit
or BL) and the other is at the top (top lit or TL). See the report
for the differences. My one comment is that the use of the "TLUD"
name (normally associated with wood micro-gasification) is a bit of
a stretch when presenting a single-walled, metal, "largish" bucket
with many side holes and filled with coal. <br>
<br>
7. The publication opens the door for further testing that should
established stoves, with comparative data of the WHT and the WBT so
that the science of stove testing can be advanced. Maybe Crispin
or Taffy can tell us about any further plans (or options) for stove
testing with the WHT.<br>
<br>
My appologies in advance for any omissions or mis-understandings. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_7460860157080993652moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_7460860157080993652moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="m_7460860157080993652moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="m_7460860157080993652moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/2018 8:30 AM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Dear Friends</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From Dr Tafadzwe Makonese at the SeTAR Centre:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a class="m_7460860157080993652moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/project/Development-of-Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-Testing-Methods" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/<wbr>project/Development-of-<wbr>Culturally-Appropriate-Stove-<wbr>Testing-Methods</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards </div>
<div>Crispin </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:18px">Abstract </span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:18px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:18px">More rigorous and
detailed test procedures are desirable to determine the effect
of various design modifications on the performance of
fuel/cookstove combinations, and to optimize their
performance. This research paper investigated the effect of a
novel heterogeneous testing method to evaluate the performance
of domestic solid fuel/cookstove combinations. The
water-heating test (WHT) and the 'hood' method were used as
the basis of the tests with additional variants of fuel load,
power setting and method of ignition. The experimental
cookstoves included a typical brazier (Imbaula), a new type
Mozambique ceramic cookstove, the baseline Mozambique metal
cookstove, and the bottom-lit down-drafting (BLDD) coal
cookstove. Results showed that a heterogeneous testing method
provides more representative performance data over a wide
range of usage scenarios, the equivalent of providing
performance curves rather than the minimum and maximum
performance points provided by single tasked based methods.
This novel heterogeneous testing method generates robust and
diagnostic results with which to compare fuel/cookstove
technologies. Cookstove designers and programme managers who
wish to improve the design of existing and new cookstoves, and
to promote efficient fuel/cookstove technologies based on
sound laboratory tests can use the principles explored in this
study.</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:18px"><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_7460860157080993652mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div>