[Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison oftheGlobal-Warming Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves

[Laurie Iaccino]

dear dedicated stovers, testers, and builders,

i write this with the utmost respect for all of you and what you do.  so,
first a big THANK YOU is in order. i read most of what you all report on and
do try to understand even some of the most difficult to grasp points., ie.,
dry fuel equivalent, cross sectional gepometry, flame velocity, specialty
fuels, charcoal development, and all in regards to global warming....now the
discussion is about truly accurate and applicable laboratory testing of
fuels.    

well, i think all of this is great. (truly.) and, on top of it, we can
justify each day our jobs, our labs, and/or our commitments and spin
ourselves around in circles making everything as exact as possible, with a
goal or goals in mind that in my opinion that while noble, are not
realistic.  in my admittedly very limited experience in the "field", mind
you, minus NGOS, and experts, you work with what you have, whom you have,
and you may not get the perfect result, however there is usually an
improvement, even if it's as simple as reduced smoke in the structure.  (and
speaking of pots, you would not believe the pots they use!  thin, banged up,
burned up and from what i saw, rarely replaced. and hardly reproducible!
and, women the world over know when to use a lid!)  however, in general, if
you teach, respect the opinions of the residents, ie., include them; you
also get folks who can critically think, actually do use their stoves, even
with their pots, and offer suggestions and changes, not to mention the most
important point of spreading the word that change is possible and
affordable. and if you want to send for what's missing, build a factory, or
have some NGO come up with a way to have what would make it perfect, my
opinion is that many of these methods are simply not sustainable.  they cost
too much, NGO's can't be everywhere,  they do not always utilize or even
take into account what the people have to offer, ie., the people we are
trying to help, nor do all communities want and/or trust them.  yes, these
are all asides to how far we want to take the testing.  the bottom line is
in the field one has to be flexible and work with what you have, ie., stove
materials, fuel, cooking pots, manpower, money, and all of this within the
day to day life/ culture/ traditions of the people we are trying to help,
juxtaposed against all of our first-world testing and development.  

i do not mean to suggest to forget the research and development.  i just
mean to suggest perhaps we can't see the forest for the trees, and in this
work one has to certainly strive for the best, but to not disregard what is
achievable as not being good enough.  yes, all needs to be evaluated but i'm
not sure we can expect to actually apply it straight across to the
communties we are trying to help.   

and finally, my partner and i are registered to attend the ETHOS conference
in Kirkland.  i look forward to it. 

thank you again for all you do,

Laurie Iaccino, R.N.

rom:  "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Reply-To:  Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
To:  "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at listserv.repp.org>,<crispin at newdawn.sz>
Subject:  Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison oftheGlobal-Warming
Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves
Date:  Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:04:25 -0700
>Roger,
>
>A fundamental question is whether there is funding available for a
>laboratory to set up and do independent testing. Much of Apro's work has
>been voluntary and on the fly worked into with various projects. As the
>process becomes more formal the costs increase. It would be appropriate to
>get the labs that have developed heating stoves (Ottawa, EPA, etc.) to do
>cooking stoves testing.
>
>Tom
>