Ron,
<snips to cut to the chase>
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 comparative report..
The 2007-2008 paper (Nordica's name first) being mentioned today has
stove corporate names associated with each stove. I worry more that the R&D
function may not be getting enough prominence, and think that could get worse
without public disclosure. There are a lot of people on this list who have
the skills to "mine" such reports.]
Agree. It’s all in how the results are presented. And as Paul says – the
research data is the only data available. Regardless all the data presented
should have the 6 BOX info attached to the report. That way when other findings
differ than that reported one can trace back to determine the reason for the
difference. I am not saying when comparing stoves all six boxes need to be
‘controlled the same’. Rather just controlled and stated so interpretation can
be more than ‘my stove is better than yours’.
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.
[RWL2-3: I disagree. A stove that was designed for and is ideal for a
fuel on which it never got tested is being treated unfairly. My understanding
is that these tests are designed to help stove designers build better stoves.
In exchange for that help, they have to live with the results going public.
Other thoughts?]
The WBT is a Test Method that cannot be changed and still called the WBT. If it
is changed it is just a Boiling Water test (BWT). But even the WBT with all its
strict requirements is still missing the Fuel classification and Fuel placement
(Box 1 and 2) controls. So the stove designer can request adjustments to those
and still be the WBT -until that is corrected. And this is a Research Test –
not Real World test needed for marketing IMO.
< Big Snip as I think we agree on these or I can sum up below>>
Example: If someone adds biochar to their soil and the plants die or grow twice
as large –that info is not important regarding research. What is very important
is taking the extra step to determine WHY and that step is often (very often)
left out. Same with the WBT. If one stove tests better than another it is
important down the road to determine WHY. In Real World the poorer stove may do
better with different fuel, how often applied etc. So the results are not
important to Real World and only important in Research if we take that extra
step to determine WHY. The extra step may take years and a lot of work so will
not likely be included in the initial report –but we must keep our eyes on the
goal and report results in a manner that include statements “For reasons yet
determined” or “Additional research on airflow needed” before improvements can
be suggested. And all six boxes need be attached so a reviewer can determine
the conditions of the test and ‘read between the lines’ before making a
decision per their specific situation.
< snip –snip>
[RWL2-5: It is my understanding that ALL six boxes ARE now being cover.
Box 1 needs to have fuel classified (like pellet or coal is now). We need to
collect the variables of importance from people and set up test packages so to
report more specific characteristics in different fuels. Round, crooked, bark
covered sticks are different than dried split sticks –etc. That is not yet
done. Instructions for fuel placement from the designer to simulate Real World
(RW) has not been done. The boxes are not covered as they need be to do RW
comparisons used in marketing.
[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.]
Jim is just one incredible person with a very big job. He can only do so much.
I was thinking the purpose of the Tool Box idea was to open this up to others
working in groups on others areas. I am just suggesting an outline as to how
that might work.
<snip>
[RWL2-8. <snip> , and believe both kgs and all the needed MJs are
available and published. <snip>
The published data on fuels are not good enough. Pellets are made of all types
of materials, ash values differ, moisture etc. Then size, shape and carbon
densities etc.
Thanks Ron and hope you did not mind the <snips> ..
Thanks
Frank Shields
BioChar Division
Control Laboratories, Inc.
42 Hangar Way
Watsonville, CE 95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(81) 724-3188 fax
<mailto:[email protected]> [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/
