[Stoves] Stove testing methods

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear David
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CEDESOL Foundation lists" <lists.cedesol at gmail.com>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: <frank at compostlab.com>; "Tessa Vlaanderen" <tessa.vlaanderen at gmail.com>; 
<stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove testing methods


> Kevin,
> let me just say that  from your comments it appears to me that you live in 
> an unrealistic sterile world condition.  Much like the USA State 
> Department.  Now I LOVE  north America but over the years of living 
> outside of her borders, I have seem some very stupid policy come from 
> government representatives and policy makes.  It seems to me that you have 
> much in common with them.
> Decisions here in the field are not made from the criteria you suggest.
>
Dr. Phil, and many others, espouse the Philosophy "If you keep on doing what 
you have always done, you will always get where you have always gone." If 
your approach to Stoves gets you the results you want, then by all means, 
stick with your present approach to problem solving. On the other hand, if 
you are not satisfied with your results, tehn you may wish to consider 
changing your approach.

> We do not lack skilled designers not skilled thinkers here in the third 
> world.  The biggest problem third world people encounter is people that 
> try to impose their way of thinking over others, much like your examples 
> of how you think.

It is one thing for you to call me stupid, and label my approach as being 
faulted. It is possible that I just might be as "out to lunch" as you 
suggest. However, such a hanging charge is helpful neither to me, nor to the 
other List Members. What would be very helpful to me, and the Stoves List, 
is if you showed specifically where my approach was wrong, so that we could 
all learn what not to do.
>
> If you bother to add 1 plus 1 then you might notice that we have designed 
> stoves to meet the perceived need here in Bolivia. 2 of those designs are 
> already posted on the bioenergy list.  just look under videos and CEDESOL. 
> For years we have exchanged information and applied the current body of 
> knowledge to the problems and within the scope of solar, retained heat and 
> efficient biomass cookers *we have developed solutions*. Not by our selves 
> but with many collaborators, including Dr. Anderson.  Now let me ask you a 
> specific question.
>
> Kevin, in all the time on this list that you have been posting comments 
> how many of them have been selected to be included into the body of 
> *solutions* applied to the world's problems related to indoor air 
> pollution and household energy?
>
> Can you please give me one concrete specific example.  From the years of 
> learning here and applying the shared knowledge I have acquired and freely 
> shared with others, I can't observe once, in you case.  Please correct me 
> if I am in error.

OK.... Here is one concrete and specific instance where my contributions 
were perceived as being meaningful: In August of 2001, I was offered an all 
expense paid trip to London England by the Shell Foundation to attend a 
Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, as a result of my contributions to the 
topic on the Stoves List at the time. This was at a time when chimneys, 
smoke stacks, and exhaust hoods were not fashionable in Stoving.
>
> My opinion is that playing "devil's advocate" is useful in some cases but 
> can be  carried to far and for me you often reach that point.
>
> Unless you can show me a specific example then please don't continue to 
> confuse the issues with BS.  Ok.  Thank you Kevin.  - -- - - -

I hopes the above example you requested satisfies your concerns.
>
> Now concerning testing methods.  and discounting Kevin's comments that so 
> far do not contain substance on this issue.   - - - -- - - - - -
> Let's keep working towards, standardized lab methods that any of us may 
> apply in not very equipped lab situations, combined with the field test of 
> cooking and user adaptability.

Why not put the emphasis on the "front end", where the stove is designed? 
Knowing what the stove was supposed to accomplish would then make it very 
easy to configure a relevant testing program to confirm whether or not it 
met its objectives.

 And let's please remember the KISS
> principle - keep it simple S.

Simple solutions are possible for simple problems. Few competent Stove 
Designers would consider Stove Design to be a simple problem. There is a 
huge price to be paid for "versatility", in terms of performance or 
complexity. Simple solutions can be possible if the Specifier is able to 
clearly specify the end user requirements, and is able to limit the required 
stove versatility.
>
> looking at the Phillips stove or the T- lud, if the cook is not interested 
> in making little pieces of fuel then regardless of how efficient those 
> technologies are, they will not be widely implemented.  I suggest that 
> that is the "bottom line", sand we must work forward from there.

There are many places where fuel is available in small sized pieces, as a 
waste product, where it could form a basis for satisfying fuel requirements. 
Some stoves, or variants of them, could do a needed job in satisfying this 
niche. They can't solve all the stove requirements, but they can certainly 
address a significant number of them. Around the World, there is a 
requirement for the preparation of about 18,000,000,000 meals per day. That 
is a big market.
>
> So, please lets discuss this point of view a bit.  From my experience, we 
> can change the users habits if the benefits to them is sufficient compared 
> to keeping the habit.  For example, in the case of solar cooker use, no 
> one has started out with that habit but when  the users chose to adopt it 
> we have been able to document about a 65% fuel savings.

Solar Cookers and Retained Heat Cookers do have their place. However, this 
is but one niche. There is a need for a panoply of Stoving Solutions. This 
is why I feel a meaningful specification would be helpful. Retained Heat 
Cookers are not a complete solution for the people Kanchan Raj is trying to 
help in Nepal, although they could indeed form part of the solution.
>
> In the case of our current project, GTZ did not include solar or retained 
> heat until the possible users demanded them.  and then we must build on 
> increasing user awareness.  This is a variable that must be incorporated 
> into the design equation.  The user's habits.

Fine. A good Stove System Specification would deal with all these issues.
>
> I agree that having simplified data on energy value for fuel types is 
> valuable as a point of reference as Frank is suggesting, but experience 
> has shown me that it is not  practical, conclusive data, because in 
> different countries the fuel needs are so diverse.

And that is exactly why Frank's suggestion, or perhaps other such works, are 
so important in aiding the formulation of a meaningful stove system 
specification.
>
> However if we can recognize the need to educate the user in applying the 
> same principals we have employed in designing the stoves, their use is 
> more probable.

I would suggest the process is more likely to encounter success if the Stove 
System Provider first finds out what the End User needs, and then has a 
Designer configure a stove that meets the End User's needs. In this manner, 
the battle is half won when the stove arrives.
>
> So as we move forward, looking at all of the possible answers, I suggest 
> we maintain in mind the needs and habits of the users as an active part of 
> the equation and testing methods.

Again, I would suggest that you are putting the cart before the horse. 
Competently specify the stove requirements first, and then formulation of a 
Testing Program will be easy. Indeed, the Final Testing Specification should 
be made available to teh Stove Designer, so that he can confirm the design 
will meet the specifications of the Field Test even before teh final design 
has left his shop.

I have every confidence that if you provide Lanny Hensen or Crispin with a 
practical specification for what you want in a Stove System, they can 
deliver exactly what you specify.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> un abrzo a todos
>
> David Whitfield
> CEDESOL Foundation
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> Dear David
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CEDESOL Foundation lists" 
>> <lists.cedesol at gmail.com>
>> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>> Cc: <frank at compostlab.com>; "Tessa Vlaanderen" 
>> <tessa.vlaanderen at gmail.com>; <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 11:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove testing methods
>>
>>
>>> Dear Kevin,
>>> I don't know what world you live in but it sure is different than mine. 
>>> ;-)
>>
>> We are indeed in violent agreement on that one!! :-)
>>>
>>> We are not an NGO that looks at the problem and then tries to find an 
>>> "off the shelf" solution as you suggested in the latter part of your 
>>> post. Also we do not look to import solutions since the importation and 
>>> transportation would cost more than the product! And therefore would not 
>>> be a solution.
>>
>> I am quite aware of Distribution Costs. You should clarify "Imported 
>> Solution" by realizing that an "Imported Solution" could be "Imported 
>> Hardware" or an "Imported Design". It might be to your advantage to 
>> consider importing a suitable design, if local designers are not 
>> sufficiently skilled.
>>>
>>> Your replies depict the root problem with some of these suggestions, and 
>>> also relate to what prompted my request for simple solutions.
>>
>> If you can define your requirements, I am sure there are people on this 
>> List that can provide an optomised solution, if a solution is possible. 
>> If you have a complex set of requirements, then a simple solution may not 
>> be possible. I hereby pose a challenge to you: You post a sensible Stove 
>> Specification to the Stoves List, and I will assure you that you will get 
>> a sensible solution.
>>
>> Let's
>>> drop down to your "contribution".
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>>> Dear David
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect, I would suggest that you have the cart before the 
>>>> horse....
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental problem is to design a good stove in the first place. 
>>>> If stoves are designed to meet the conditions required of them, the 
>>>> test results are guaranteed to be superior than if someone puts 
>>>> together a "neat stove" without considering all the features it must 
>>>> deliver to the end user.
>>>>
>>> all I can say here is "duh"  Who in the real world would ever consider 
>>> designing a neat stove without  considering the end user. Perhaps that 
>>> is the norm in your world, if not then your reply is just antagonistic 
>>> dribble.
>>
>> I would guess that many Organizations acquired neat looking stoves that 
>> failed miserably in the Field. Indeed, a number of recent postings allude 
>> to the significantly reduced field performance of stoves that looked 
>> pretty neat in the lab.
>>
>>>> Consider if you order an "electric generator", and don't tell Supplier 
>>>> "X" your complete requirements. He sends you a 3 kW generator, 110 VAC 
>>>> 60 Hz, fueled by natural gas, good for emergency use. What you really 
>>>> need might have been 30 kW, 220 VAC, 50 Hz, fueled with diesel fuel, 
>>>> good for prime power. When you test the generator from "Supplier "X", 
>>>> you will not be pleased.
>>> How can you really expect some trumped up example like this is possible 
>>> in the real world?
>>
>> In my opinion, selecting a stove without a clear fuel specification is in 
>> the same league as the above example.
>>>
>>> In your world you might face that situation or so might a person sitting 
>>> comfortably in an armchair before his computer with no realization of 
>>> what the field really is and thinks he is smart enough to intimidate 
>>> anyone else with his replies.
>>>>
>> Are you intimidated by my suggestion that you get a comprehensive Stove 
>> Specification?
>>
>>>> It is the same with stoves... you can get the right results the first 
>>>> time if you order a stove that was designed for your intended 
>>>> application.
>>
>>> Let me ask you to order a stove for yareta, llama dung and tolla that 
>>> could also be used with various types of firewood and degrees of 
>>> humidity, with a chimney.
>>
>> What you are asking for here is the Stove Equivalent of my generator 
>> example above.
>>>>
>>>> For example, Paul Anderson mentioned that a stove test with which he 
>>>> was associated failed miserably because he was required to use a fuel 
>>>> for which the stove was not designed.
>>> Paul is an extremely hard working, intelligent individual who really 
>>> gets out there and explores real solutions.  He is not stumped by 
>>> challenges and he persistently looks for ways to move forward.  You can 
>>> learn a great deal from his example.  Paul is not "an armchair 
>>> quarterback".  He is in my opinion an applied scientist.  And he has 
>>> been in this part of the field several times and has earned my respect 
>>> as well as the respect of many ETHOS volunteers who have worked with 
>>> him, experimenting and tinkering to fine tune the "right combinations".
>>
>> I am not at all criticising Paul. Indeed, I am very sympathetic to the 
>> situation he described. He volunteered to help a competitor, but 
>> regrettably, the rules required that the Competitor use the fuel that was 
>> selected as "standard" for the test, but the fuel was inappropriate for 
>> what seemed to be an otherwise good stove.
>>
>>>> This is a vivid proof of the importance of matching the stove design to 
>>>> the fuel. What Frank is proposing is to assemble a list of various 
>>>> fuels, and do test work to present their important properties.
>>>>
>>> What I an saying is that the picture you paint is not probable because 
>>> in the real world of applications there are too many varibles to testing 
>>> the fuel.  You have no control how the fuel is used or gathered or 
>>> stored and it is not usually mass produced
>>
>> The picture I paint is indeed probable for the very reasons you list. It 
>> is impossible to design a stove that accomplishes teh desired functions 
>> unless the Stove Designer has a clear specification. How can one possibly 
>> expect consistent results from a stove if the fuel conditions vary as 
>> much as you suggest? If you specify a reasonable range of fuel 
>> conditions, then the Stove Designer can probably deal well with them.
>>
>>>> As an NGO person wishing to acquire stoves for the people you work 
>>>> with, here is how the Work that Frank proposes could be helpful to you:
>>> If you analyze the word *ass u me* do you know what happens?  Seems that 
>>> your remarks are full of assumptions.
>>>>
>> Certainly, they are full of assumptions! Which of the assumptions do you 
>> find to be substantially in error?
>>
>>>> You could identify the fuel available to your people,  include other 
>>>> relevant specifications, and then send out an Inquiry to various Stove 
>>>> Manufacturers or Designers, and ask: "Will your stove meet the required 
>>>> specifications when operating on Fuel #XXX as described in Frank's Fuel 
>>>> Book?"
>>> Here I have to just break down, drop all  niceties and say HOW STUPID. 
>>> Do you think people don't take these things into consideration as a 
>>> matter of course?  Is that the type of people you are used to dealing 
>>> with?
>>
>> Your stove evaluating criteria, as listed below, would seem to be 
>> deficient.
>>
>>  Well save me some air space and don't make those assumptions or
>>> at least please don't write about those assumptions related to my posts. 
>>> i am looking for serious replies.
>>
>> I am attempting to help you get serious replies. If you put out a serious 
>> specification, then you should get serious replies. I would suggest that 
>> a specification based on your "3 basic things are important..." is not 
>> enough. All you have to do is elaborate fully on "...plus how is the 
>> stove
>> accepted by the actual users...."  :-)
>>>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CEDESOL Foundation lists" 
>>>> <lists.cedesol at gmail.com>
>>>> To: <frank at compostlab.com>
>>>> Cc: "Tessa Vlaanderen" <tessa.vlaanderen at gmail.com>; 
>>>> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove testing methods
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Stovers et al.,
>>>>>
>>>>> From the point of view of someone in the field, in a developing
>>>>> country, actively involved in stove dissemination, design and testing;
>>>>> more elaborate testing of fuels and such is not what is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simplified testing procedures that can be reproduced in the lab in
>>>>> developed countries, in the lab in developing countries, combined with
>>>>> tests cooking local foods, combined with tests by actual users under
>>>>> their "normal" conditions is more practical for us.  That coupled with
>>>>> the scaling up suggestions offered by Don Oneal about a year ago is 
>>>>> the
>>>>> most practical way to have a "generic" stove procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are too many variables to take into consideration other wise. 
>>>>> As
>>>>> I insinuated in my last post, with different cooking needs, fuel needs
>>>>> and cultures you just can not mechanize stoves and fuels so easily as
>>>>> some seem to be trying to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 basic things are important to compare stoves.  How much pollution is
>>>>> produced and how much energy gets into the pot over time, plus how is
>>>>> the stove accepted by the actual users.  In the final analysis, the 
>>>>> last
>>>>> variable is the most critical to getting stoves out of the designing
>>>>> labs and into the hands of the cooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a user in the field of the testing methods we welcome 
>>>>> simplification
>>>>> on how to demonstrate combustion efficiency and heat transfer
>>>>> efficiency.  From there it is our responsibility to adapt to the 
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the suggestions
>>>>>
>>>>> David Whitfield
>>>>> Cochabamba Bolivia
>>>>>
>>
>>
>