Frank cc list and others See few more replies below.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Shields" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "Jim Jetter" <[email protected]>, "Hugh McLaughlin" <[email protected]>, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>, "Paul Anderson" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:06:37 PM Subject: RE: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests. Ron, See below: From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 3:13 PM To: Frank Shields Cc: Jim Jetter; Hugh McLaughlin; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Paul Anderson Subject: Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests. Frank and ccs Thanks. No problems with the following. My concern was that you didn't believe the stove name should be released - and that seems not to be the case. I do believe the stove name should not be released - except to us. Where the results will not be missed used. That is to use it for marketing and not just for research information as it should. [RWL2- 1 : I can't see that "secrecy" working. Word is sure to leak out if there s a summary comparat ive report. . The 2007-2008 paper (Nordi ca's name first) being mentioned today has stove corporate names assoc ia ted w ith each st ove . I worry more that the R&D fun ct ion may n ot be getting enough prominence , and think that could get worse w ithout public disclosure. There are a lot of people on t h is list who have the sk ills to "mine" such reports. ] You don't address this below, but I think this list should ask if all 6 of your steps are now adequately covered by GACC, Jim Jetter, the WBT 4.2.1, and the other non-lab tests, that have many of the characterstics of 4.2.1 I think they are, with the possible exception of your step 5. I think time spent in tending to the stoves is an important stove variable and should fit there. I think from conversations with Jim that something new to report may be in the works there. Yes – the WBT as my understanding it from time back (I need to revisit) does specify many of the variables. [RWL2-2: If many and not all, we (this list) need to talk now. Your next response says a lot is missing.] I also think that the stove developer should be able to specify or veto the fuel type (your 1 and 2). I don't know if that is always possible now. At a minimum Jm etal should announce in advance the types of fuels they can supply. The stove developer should have no say as to how this test (WBT) is conducted except for possible suggestions as to his findings to what makes it work best. [RWL 2-3: I disagree. A stove that was designed for and is ideal for a fue l on which it never got tested is being treated unf airly. M y understanding is that these tests are designed to help stove des igners build better stoves. In exchange for that help, they have to live with the results going publ ic. O ther thou ghts?] The purpose of this test is * research *. Like what Dean and Larry did years ago to find the best gap above the pot and the 10 stove rules. [RWL2-4. I agree that th is would be ideal - and with GACC funding. That is the model of a national lab (and worked at one - and the results are alwa ys public) . But that is a different intent than what is now going on . Some valuable results w ill come out for those paying attent ion to Jim's published results (and from the many new regional test centers). Other thoughts?] This test does little (unless redesigned) for real world comparison as this procedure is only IN Box 3 and does not include the outside variables (other boxes). [RWL2-5: It is my understand ing that ALL six boxes ARE now be ing covered. I hope y ou will tell Jim and the GACC how to better cover them , s ince I think he sees that as his job. Maybe I am wrong.] Stove designers are doing the researchers a favor to have them use their stoves for this research. [RWL2-6. I perceive the stove designers are the researchers. Jim is an unbiased third party tester - needed by both the individual designers and the stove development system (GACC). Funded in a way that most stove designers/researchers can't duplicate.] For example: If Paul Anderson TLUD comes out much better than another is it useless info (for the real world) and only useful if the researcher goes the * extra step * to determine why. That might be to fill the fire box with flowing sand to determine its volume or measure air flow or, as Crispin is planning, to measure the stack gas. Anything to give a clue or info where a change can make the not-so-good stove the same as the good stove and the good stove better. [RWL2-7. J im IS measuring airflow. Yes, he is probably gi ving some clues, but the intent is to compare and report on existing commercial, not R&D stoves. Last. I think I would prefer to see results for one stove use. Why 1000 people (or stoves? or families?)? Are you recommending for one day or one year. or? You have emphasized fuel amounts (kg?) rather than energy efficiency. OK to do both? I just mention units of measure that are of real interest to the real world, ‘Fuel required to live / person’/ time. Following the energy from the fuel is what Crispin and Jim are doing (research to find the best materials and optimum gaps and air-gas mixes etc.). That to improve Box 3 (Stoves) that will lower the * fuel * required to * live * per * day *. Using stoves supplied for the research they can start by seeing what each stove can do then determine the reason one is better over the other. Best of luck to them as it will not be easy as we have seen all these years. They continue work done by Dean and Larry and others but doing it on other types of stoves. At least that’s the way I see it. [RWL2-8. I agree with most of the above , and believe both kgs and all the needed MJs are available and publi shed . But I th i nk your syst em requires the abil ity to change and tweak here and there. Could take retooling, etc. No t something a n overworked test lab in North Carolina can do, much less many ot her new ones scattered around the globe . There will be tradeoffs - more/less efficiency for less/more emiss ions? Better testing groups like yours being hired to do th at work. I think most of the current testing is being done on rockets. Ron] Thanks Frank Thanks Frank Shields BioChar Division Control Laboratories, Inc. 42 Hangar Way Watsonville, CE 95076 (831) 724-5422 tel (81) 724-3188 fax [email protected] www.controllabs.com Again, thanks. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Shields" < [email protected] > To: "Ron" < [email protected] >, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" < [email protected] >, "Paul Anderson" < [email protected] > Cc: "Jim Jetter" < [email protected] >, "Hugh McLaughlin" < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:14:57 PM Subject: RE: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests. Ron and all, <snip> Can you tell us more of how to best get and use all of Jim's test results? Any precedents in the (your) testing world? Ron Working from the big picture we are trying to: ‘reduce the Fuel required for living / 1000 people’. To study ways to do this we need to get organized and control the variables as we follow the energy from the fuel to the task. They are: 1: Fuel 2: fuel manipulation 3: stoves 4) utensil 5) utensil manipulation 6) task If we work on and improve one of the six then the total fuel required is reduced per the 1000 people. And working in each group is what we are doing but not in an organized manor. The stoves being tested that Paul is talking about is working within group three. Determining what makes one stove better than another. Making better briquettes is group one and stating fuel placed in a stove vertical works better than horizontal is group two. So to answer your question: I would like to see in the report that Jim produces 1) chemical and physical properties and a description of the fuel used during testing and 2) the frequency and manipulation of the fuel when added to each stove tested along with the 3) Stove (name and designer etc.) 4) utensils used, 5) water stirring frequency etc and 6) results of the Task. So NOT a BIG DEAL! Then if there are different results found at Stove Camp than what Jim reports we have a chance of looking through the conditions and, perhaps, determine the cause. Also; When stove users determine one size fraction or moisture content or how best to introduce fuel to a stove makes a difference in results – send that info to the appropriate group. As that is a parameter that should be included in a test package. If it is observed in the ‘real world’ people will only do something one way – send that info to the group working on that section. That is when(if) we get these groups in place! I suggest Paul bring to Stove Camp a handful of biomass used at a location where he wants to sell his stove and make sure the report from Stove Camp reports the six parameters. He will be able to show results based on ‘real’ fuel. Also: I don’t get into all this following the energy stuff and how to calculate in the char etc. If someone needs char and has a use for it – that is ‘required for living’. If when cooking the house overheats so the front door is kept open that is no different than cooking in winter and closing the front door – ‘required for living’. Thanks for asking! Sometimes I think I am only talking to myself. : ) Regards Frank Thanks Frank Shields BioChar Division Control Laboratories, Inc. 42 Hangar Way Watsonville, CE 95076 (831) 724-5422 tel (81) 724-3188 fax [email protected] www.controllabs.com
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
