[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: 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
>>>