<div dir="ltr">Xavier:<br><br>Nicely put. <br><br>The way I read Kirk H., his complaint is that "<span style="font-size:12.8px">these cooking vessel tests .. do not measure the qualities of the stove itself."<br><br>You and Crispin seem to be obsessed with "reliability". Of course, reproducibility is a hallmark of science. But my question is, "reliability" of what and why?<br><br>There is no reason to worry about fuel or thermal efficiency per se; it is the overall economy of cooking - which no doubt includes costs of food ingredients, water, fuel, vessels, stove, time - that even a supposedly illiterate woman understands and tries to obtain. <br><br>Equally, there is no reason to worry about per minute emission rates unless they are shown to predictably affect exposures, not computed fantasies of air circulation models for closed spaces, one room or two or three. <br><br>So, except for CDM and Gold Standard who rely on fictional CO2 avoidance (and ignore health pollutants), or marketers of HAPIT, who cares about performance metrics and tiers that you and Crispin, along with many others, signed off on six or more years ago (Hague or Lima)?<br><br>In that sense, I think Kirk H. has advanced a most valuable and succinct suggestion, even keeping efficiency as a metric - <br></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;font-size:12.8px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;font-size:12.8px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u><br></p><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;font-size:12.8px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-size:12.8px">"How about looking into some more versatile tests that are not limited to a pot of water. How would we test the efficiency of getting the heat into a wok being used for stir frying? Perhaps we could use an infrared thermometer to measure the temperature of the food and end the test when it all reaches a temperature that kills bacteria. How about testing the stove and the cooking vessel separately, so each has its own values? That would give the consumer a much better preview of both, and more knowledge to pick and choose."</span></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>Amen. This is complicated but a step toward realism. Different fuels and meals can provide additional variation. <br><br>The ProPublica piece is junk journalism, another trip report from poverty tourism. I think a new thinking can start with a modest acknowledgement that a cookstove is for cooking, that performance metrics may only be defined in the context of a"service standard" (actions such as boil, steam, wok fry, deep fry, roast, and major meal types that cover most of these actions and employ different vessels) and of public policy (i.e., non-cooking - e.g., air quality improvement).<br><br>A repeat plea - listen to the cooks who cook meals, not numbers.<br><br>Reading the Indonesia pilot report yesterday, I remember an analogy with Indonesia Solar Home Systems project, which became a template for many other SHS projects. For bulk procurement under the rules of competitive bidding, entire systems were specified; this led to one disaster after another. Under the SHS projects, components had to comply with standards, but retailers were free to design the 35Wp, 50Wp SHS and after-sales service pitch customized to their target customers.<br><br>Just maybe, this Indonesia cookstove pilot has created a template to promote customer-centric design and subsidy scheme unlike anything EPA had in mind in setting off the ISO exercise. <br><br>Nikhil<br><br><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br></font></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Xavier Brandao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xav.brandao@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_-5614487744518268890Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Dear Kirk,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">We could also call
« arguing »: « sound scientific discussion ».<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Researchers are arguing about
climate change, Artifical Intelligence, the size of the universe … All that is
necessary, I believe.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The « WBT argument »
that has been going on « for years » is more like Crispin hammering
the fact that the WBT is not reliable, with little to no reaction, and Ron
strongly defending the WBT because of the tiers and denominator equation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Lately, all the evidence against
the WBT has been compiled, discussed, and has not been refuted.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">We also talked about alternative
protocols at length.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“I had a choice and I chose to work on the
TLUD.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Very good. We are many different
people, we can all work on many different things, and share our findings.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">None of the above discussions
prevented anyone to work on the stove they like. Instead they gave them full
information and warning about the situation with tests.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I spend very little of my time
talking about the WBT, I’m busy with other things.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“If you were working on tests that could be
used for all cooking vessels instead of just a pot of water I might abide with
you”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The CSI does that, normally. It
is contextual. Crispin might be able to give more clarifications here. Kirk, have
you tried this protocol?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I believe the new standard
allows different cooking vessels as well?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“both disliked and liked tests”</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="#954F72"><div class="m_-5614487744518268890Section1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">You mean unreliable and
reliable.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Indeed, now is the time to move
forward. We want to move forward. We want to drive, drive, drive, fast. But
it’s good that we checked first if the car was safe or if it was heading in the
right direction.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The ProPublica article sums it
up well: only little progress has been achieved by the cookstove sector, after
decades of hard work.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The cause for that certainly wasn’t
overthinking, was it?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><br>
Xavier<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">De :</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Stoves
[mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves-bounces@lists.<wbr>bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>De la part de</b> Kirk H.<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> mardi 17 juillet 2018 03:46<br>
<b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Objet :</b> [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Xavier,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The main idea in my response on 7-13 was
that well designed TLUDs are excellent stoves, capable of suppling steady,
efficient, and low particulate heat for cooking purposes. As far as
arguing over tests is concerned, some have indeed been arguing for years.
This was/is over the portion of the WBT which measures the efficiency of
getting heat into a pot of water, which to me is very limited. I had a
choice and I chose to work on the TLUD. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The next part of my statement is
important: “This especially for tests which have more to do with
the cooking vessel than with the stove itself.” If you were working on
tests that could be used for all cooking vessels instead of just a pot of water
I might abide with you, but not for a test the results of which are of no value
for anything but the test pot of water. Do we have a test for stir frying
in a wok? Nope. Only a pot of water. Yet woks are extensively
used for cooking. And it doesn’t even matter if we use a wood
stove. The cooking vessel tests would get the same results over a natural
gas burner as long as all the variables like skirt, lid, and pot stand are held
the same. These tests have to do with the cooking vessel not the
capabilities of the stove. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I can abide with the WBT or WHT as long as
it is made clear that the disputed portion includes only the efficiency of
getting heat into a pot of water, but says nothing about other much used
cooking vessels, such as putting soup in the pot instead of water, or woks,
griddles, ovens, etc. Also I note that these cooking vessel tests can use
any heat source, like natural gas or electrical, and except for a limited
relationship to fire power, do not measure the qualities of the stove
itself. Measurements concerning the stove are taken by the sensors and filters.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Both the disliked and liked tests have a
very limited scope. How about looking into some more versatile tests that
are not limited to a pot of water. How would we test the efficiency of
getting the heat into a wok being used for stir frying? Perhaps we could
use an infrared thermometer to measure the temperature of the food and end the
test when it all reaches a temperature that kills bacteria. How about
testing the stove and the cooking vessel separately, so each has its own
values? That would give the consumer a much better preview of both, and
more knowledge to pick and choose.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">TLUDs are very capable stoves, effectively
heating whatever cooking vessel under which they are placed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kirk H.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>