[Stoves] [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Stove and Fuel Testing]]

[CEDESOL Foundation lists]

Dear Crispin,

Perhaps this message did not make it to where you are and perhaps you 
did not notice the questions within the body of the message related to 
the comments you suppled.  We look forward to your colaboration

warm regards
David Whitfield

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Fwd: Re: [Stoves] Stove and Fuel Testing]
Date: 	Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:12:58 -0400
From: 	David Whitfield <david.cedesol at gmail.com>
Reply-To: 	david.cedesol at gmail.com
Organization: 	CEDESOL Foundation
To: 	Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin at newdawn.sz>, Crispin 
<crispin at newdawnengineering.com>



Hi friend,

Some of the information you could supply related to my questions is very 
important to me.  Please look for some time to help us out.

Thanks
David

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Stoves] Stove and Fuel Testing
Date: 	Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:25:56 -0400
From: 	CEDESOL Foundation lists <lists.cedesol at gmail.com>
Reply-To: 	lists.cedesol at gmail.com
Organization: 	Center for Development with Solar Energy
To: 	Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin at newdawn.sz>
CC: 	Stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
References: 	<0daa01c6e811$a1c30b00$55413f45 at Averatec>



Thanks for the synopsis of the problems with the recognized stove 
testing protocols.
By the way, I was conversing by skype with Crosby the other day.  We met 
in Granada.

Have you identified why the Dutch don't like the Shell/Berkley 3 part tests?

see below
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear David
>
> There are problems here:
>
> There is not even agreement on using local pots filled with 'normal' amounts 
> of water. 
That seems the simplest part, but really just using the same amount of 
water will give basic desired information for comparison.  For example 
Proleña Bolivia publishes what their stoves will do in time and fuel 
consumption using 2 liters of water.  So to compare we modified our 
application of the Shell tests to use 2 liters. 
>  The Dutch Government (DGIS) has a set of tests that are used to 
> evaluate whether or not stoves they have funded saved 40% of the fuel (in 
> the case of charcoal) or 50% (in the case of wood).  They are quite 
> practical and fair to the funder and work in a lab as well as in a house. 
>   
If you described this procedure I must have missed the post.  Please 
direct me to it or send me by email to david.cedesol at gmail.com.  I 
would like to compare it to the Shell protocol we are using.
> The testing protocol is not very expensive and can fit within 5% of the 
> programme budget.  It is used in several countries which I guess could 
> qualify it as 'internationally recognized'.
>   
We are doing work with GTZ here in a new stove program.  Last year as a 
consultant to them, we tried to run fuel use base lines but the on site 
people too often bent the rules to their convienance to give us the real 
accuracy we were looking for.  I understand the difficulties in that.
> The pressure to 'do something' about the testing is coming from the funders 
> who want to know if their interventions have had the intended effect. 
> Lab-based tests only show that a certain technology _could_ have the 
> intended effect if people used it correctly.
>   
I agree that lab based test do not give a true view of the picture.  The 
bottom line is always how well and how many are being used. 

Within the GTZ program, they are developing a series of protocols for 
determining combustion efficiency, transfer efficiency, GHG and CO and 
PM, all basically in a lab for improvements and comparisons and to 
benchmark each stove to be able to spot check quality of stoves being 
produced.

Additionally we have helped them be aware of the need for field test and 
there is a project monitoring and evaluation component as well.
> As you know, some stove technologies are to stove programmes what Swedish 
> cellphone throwing contests are to the communications industry: not what was 
> originally intended.
>
> Money talks and BS walks, even if it is de-watered, press-caked and 
> freeze-dried.  The programmes are forging ahead; the money is there to make 
> huge impacts.  Roger S and others will bring CDM on line. 
CEDESOL is also interested in CDM, both for solid fuel stoves and solar 
stoves.  We are with Roger on a HEDON CDM colaboration, where we are 
developing lobbying activites and trying to agree on forment industry 
standards for ICS
>  By then the World 
> of Stoves should have its house in order or we will be clucking in the 
> henhouse eating chicken feed as the big corporations take over the farm.
>
> Greetings to all
> Crispin
>
> +++ "I am not sure I like that protocol!" Tom said testily. +++ 
>
> istserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>
>