<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Nikhil wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">By all evidence available to the eye,
proponents of better biomass stoves have thrown in the towel.</blockquote>
<br>
I can only interpret this to mean that YOU do not read about the
TLUD stoves. Or you think that I and others are not trying.<br>
<br>
Do not appologize or make excuses. Just get the facts correct.
Or at least do not imply that ALL have given up. One slip is
forgiven. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, Kirk Smith repeatedly ignores TLUD stove
progress. Never even a glimmer of acknowledgement of TLUD stoves.
<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/18/2018 12:51 PM, Nikhil Desai
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F7D9E0A3-E772-4ED8-A023-3110D316304B@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>Xavier:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is why gas and electricity have won. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And GACC has failed to support cookstoves with solid primary
biomass. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>None of the Lima, Hague signatories have yet responded to
Kirk Smith's challenge to the biomass community. Nor challenged
WHO and GACC about the Guidelines for Solid Fuel Combustion that
practically rule out unprocessed (primary) biomass. Nor bothered
that SDG progress is to be measured by transition from solid
fuels. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By all evidence available to the eye, proponents of better
biomass stoves have thrown in the towel. Whether they games they
were defeated by were silly or foul, dumb or dirty, doesn't
bother me. <br>
<br>
I have yet to see a test for stove+user+vessel+fuel+food. Leave
alone an international standard for it. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Make merry, not food? (Wet finger from finger-licking food is
the test of cooking, after all.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nikhil (Proudly Peerless)
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:03 PM, "Xavier Brandao" <<a
href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">xav.brandao@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Nikhil,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
CSI or WHT measure the qualities of the cooking system,
and
that includes the stove itself (and the vessel).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Reliability
is nothing more than that: « if I test this
stove, within this cooking system « stove + user +
vessel + fuel +
food », can I trust the lab results to give me good
indication on how the
stove will operate in real life, with a similar cooking
system »?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">That’s
the minimum requirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">« </span></i><i><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">it is the
overall economy of cooking »<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sure,
it is this economy which is often difficult to predict
and
improve i.e. the stove which saves fuel in the lab and
wastes fuel in the
kitchen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.5pt">« 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)? »<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">No
one. But everyone cares about what these performance
metrics
translate. Even the user: « my stove cooks faster, it’s
great to prepare
breakfast in the morning. » « I need to fetch twice less
wood or buy
twice less charcoal », « I cough less » etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">« A repeat plea - listen to the cooks
who cook meals,
not numbers. »<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Listening
to cooks is what everyone does or tries to do. The
hardest
part is what comes after. It is easy to say « listen to
cooks », but
how do you design a stove from there?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Your
future customer will say: « I want my new stove to be
quicker than my mud stove, with no smoke. I want it to
allow to cook big or
small quantity of food, and to save wood ».<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Once
you have listened to a cook, how do you design a stove
from
there?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Have
you already tried to design, build, test, improve a
stove
Nikhil?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
don’t see how a stove can be designed with no numbers
and only
a wet finger.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
test the stove with a wok, there are the CCT and KPT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
the lab, the WHT and CSI approach seem to make much more
sense to me. The customer needs can translate in
numbers. You need to cook rice
and dhal? But how does it translate in terms of time,
power to the pot?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
you say: « I want my smartphone to be responsive and
powerful », this translates to numbers for the engineers
in the lab. But,
of course, you will submit the target-customer to your
product, to the
experience of it, so he/can can tell you how he/she
feels, how the product
feels.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.5pt">"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."<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sure,
and it has been said many times that new protocols, more
adapted, should be developed if someone feels it is
needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">You
have tried the CSI and WHT to test a stove + wok used
for
stir frying, and you think it is not adapted?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Tell
exactly what is not adapted, how it could be better,
develop your own protocol, and submit it to peer review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best,<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Xavier<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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"">
Nikhil Desai
[<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> mercredi 18 juillet 2018 01:56<br>
<b>À :</b> Xavier Brandao<br>
<b>Cc :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Paul
Anderson; Kirk H.;
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Xavier:<br>
<br>
Nicely put. <br>
<br>
The way I read Kirk H., his complaint is that "<span
style="font-size:
9.5pt">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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">"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."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">(US
+1) 202 568 5831<br>
<i>Skype:
nikhildesai888</i></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>