[Stoves] Stove testing methods

[CEDESOL Foundation lists]

Dear Kevin,
While my English language skills are are not as polished as they used to 
be, I  think I can still communicate in English. 

Kevin, from my perspective, when you write responding to my posts it 
appears to me  that your comments are not relevant to what I am posting, 
and that you come up with all kinds of "logical" arguments to support 
your thoughts and it all goes in a direction completely different from 
what I am talking about.  You are very skilled at writing and it is 
impressive.

Please slow down and digest these points.

1. There are competent stove designers here in Bolivia, including ours 
and *we are not talking about needing someone to design a stove.*
2. *We learned* (and continue to learn) from  Sam Baldwin, Larry, Dean, 
Don O Neal, Paul Anderson and many others, some who are also on this 
list, *to explore user needs before beginning the design*.  *All that is 
part of the very basics of stove design Kevin.*  Please be sure that we 
know that. 

We have had ETHOS teams work with us and perform WBT and other 
internationally recognized tests on different stoves at different design 
stages over the last several years.  Some of their work is posted to the 
stoves web page.  In 2003, they were in charge of the tests for the 
first thermal bricks we developed in the 6 brick stove boiling away on 
the web page, heating 5 liters of water in under 18 minutes using 488 
grams of wood (in the lab and working quite well with dung fuel, and 
other none wood fuels as well in the field).

please keep reading . . .

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear David
> --

>>
> 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.  
Do you read what you write Kevin?  These statements are all overly 
obvious paths for a thinking person.  In our culture, it is insulting to 
repeatedly be told the overly obvious.  It infers that one does not have 
the capacity to visualize the overly obvious. 
>
>> 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.
Now Kevin, I don't believe I actually called you stupid, and I don't 
presume to teach the stove list, my debt is to share knowledge, 
information, successes and failures, learn from others and present what 
I have experienced in case that can save someone else some trial and 
error.  I say "debt" because here in this forum and offshoots has been 
much more relevant that classroom learning and I have gained some much 
from most of the information presented in same.

But, since you asked Kevin,  concerning our conversations and your 
observation above, your approach doesn't deal with the realities of the 
topic I am discussing on the one hand and on the other hand you keep 
making these general statements that are about the obvious.  I consider 
that to be an incorrect approach.   Is that helpful?
>>
>> 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.
GREAT, that is wonderful to learn about and I humbly stand corrected and 
beg your pardon!  I am sure your contributions to that event were 
meaningful!  I would be interested in knowing them.

My personal slant on that subject is that exhaust hoods are the best way 
to go, using a single pot cooker, retained heat cooker and when possible 
the solar cooker.  With the single pot stove and  the retained heat 
cooker, the stove really cooks for more than one pot at the time.  
Providing sufficient incoming low air permits the exhaust hood to 
extract most particles and gases, and if the stove smokes a bit then the 
operator knows they have to tweak the fire.

Now, I never wanted to do more than a one pot stove, but being flexible 
to the users, we developed a 2 burner rocket stove with a chimney.  
Still a good stove, cost a lot more to make but right now we are busy 
trying to fill orders for around a 1000 of them so I guess something 
must be right about them.
>>
>> 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.
Somehow I think you misunderstand my position on the testing comments. * 
I am not asking for someone to configure a more relevant testing program. *
I am suggesting that those writing on the list manifesting to wanting to 
make a contribution to develop more testing programs look to where the 
programs will be used mostly.  I our case, that is in a third world 
country and the bottom line will be how well it cooks for the person 
using it, in addition to the reduction in IAP or fuel.   Plus, in our 
case, one basic type of stove has to deal with a large variety of fuel 
types.  That is just the characteristics of living in a country with 
such a diverse situation
>
> 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.
While your statement is true, is is also true that one simple stove can 
be versatile enough to satisfy the various needs of different kinds of 
users, while employing a variety of fuels. 

That is one reason I like the rocket stove design and in our case our 
fuel shelf is designed so that the innermost part is full of air spaces 
so dung fuels like llama droppings or donkey and cow patties can be 
successfully burned, or when they might have some agricultural waste 
like cornstalks they will also burn well, or when they have firewood and 
will use it in small sticks, they can still get great results.  Of 
course that might also be why we have a bunch of orders to fill.
>>
>> 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. 
here you are absolutely correct and we think alike on this issue Kevin.  
Paul Anderson is introducing his stove through us for just such 
situations.  There are still logistical issues on batch burning to work 
out, however.  and that is really related to the users adaptability.

Another good stove we consider for the tropics is Sr. Karve's biogas 
stove.  Also Roger Samson's rice burner for the flat lands where rice is 
harvested, and making charcoal form sugarcane waste where that is 
harvested by migrant workers. 
> 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.
I don't really look at all of this as a big market, I look at it as 
billions of people whose basic needs are not being meet, dying because 
of it and I'm trying to do a little something about it Kevin.
>>
>> 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.
That's right Kevin, again we agree on something.  But I think the point 
should be not to present any of the solutions as THE solution.  *I do 
advocate integrated cooking solutions.*  If 30% to 50% of the need can 
be meet through incorporating retained heat and 30 to 50% meet through 
solar, about only 20 to 40% will be biomass and that is a lot of fuel 
saved and pollution reduced.
>>
>> 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.
Thanks for agreeing with us Kevin.  That is exactly what we did through 
the pilot project last November
>>
>> 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
>>
Well Kevin, maybe by now you have reconsidered the cart before the horse 
statement, at any rate I have enjoyed our latest exchange.  My wife just 
texted me insisting that I divorce form the Internet, so until next time.

Oh by the way Kevin, you might like to know that I was invited by the 
GTZ and South African government to present work in Kimberly South 
Africa in 2000, by Eastern University in their micro finance school 
conference on Micro finance and renewable energy in the USA in 2004, and 
most recently both my wife and I were sponsored by Solar Cookers 
International and Solar Household Energy to participate in a conference 
in Granada Spain.  There were advocated integrated cooking systems and 
presented the 2 burner rocket stove to a mostly solar cooker audience.

Thanks for exploring these issues and thanks for all of your worthwhile 
contributions Kevin.  I apologize for being "testy" earlier.

warm regards
David
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>