[Stoves] Stove testing methods

[Kevin Chisholm]

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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:

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?"

>From those who said "Yes", you could acquire stoves and then you could do 
your tests. You would likely be pleased with the results.

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
>
>
>
>
> frank wrote:
>> Dear Tom and others,
>>
>>  From my experience even the same type of fuels, be it manures or wood,
>> quality varies greatly based on the season they are harvested, how they
>> are handles once  harvested.  Moisture and ash can be very different and
>> the density depends a lot on how it is cut, pressed and packed. The ones
>> people have learned that will work well should be tested and be our
>> 'goal' when working with other sources. And I agree a 'major'
>> characterization is not needed and that is why from all that tests that
>> can be done I have picked out only the few simple ones everyone can do
>> and  will give us the most info.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>> Fuel composition testing won't help most stove development. Moisture,
>>> density and ash are the key components that affect combustion and these 
>>> are
>>> known for most fuels. (See the dung discussion, for example.) People 
>>> working
>>> with briquetting learn pretty quickly which fuels or combinations burn 
>>> well
>>> in a densified form. Knowledge about fuel composition may help explain 
>>> why
>>> certain densified fuels won't burn or suggest ways that burning can be
>>> enhanced. I don't see that a major characterization effort can be very
>>> helpful. It's usually more productive to identify what fuels don't work 
>>> and
>>> then focus on ways to make them work.
>>>
>>> Let's find ways to get more stove performance testing done in developing
>>> countries and see if that suggests ways to improve stove design and
>>> construction for broader use.
>>>
>>> Tom