[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Sat Aug 10 17:39:08 CDT 2013

Dear Dean and Kevin

>Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO
process that is occurring? 

Yes I can. I think we should be discussing the concepts the underlie the
purpose of testing long before writing international standards to capture
them. 

Kevin hits the nail on the head: the ISO process is an observed process, not
a 'good results process'. 

># The first sensible step is to develop a scientifically valid testing
procedure, which THEN would be submitted for ISO Approval. As long as ISO
standards and procedures were followed, such a scientifically valid testing
procedure would consistently give scientifically valid results. 

Precisely.

There are several aspects of stove performance that are not addressed at all
that relate to the social acceptance and cultural acceptability of products.
I invite Cecil to comment on this because he has been working on an
evaluation matrix of social performance.

The WBT, for all the assistance it has been for many years, is conceptually
out of date on several levels. It does not ask the right questions. It
cannot provide the necessary answers. It uses some questionable metrics and
in general does not - in fact has not - delivered the programme results
needed at this time in history.

The pattern to date for the progress towards an international standard has
been for the organisers to concretize the WBT as the default test method, to
stand by it through thick, thin and noise, to promise future correction of
known issues and to avoid serious discussion from first principles of what
we are supposed to be doing. In particular the independent review of the WBT
as 'fit for purpose' has not only been overlooked, it has been evaded.
Ladies and gentlemen, this state of affairs is not going to fly.

It is not (at all) necessary to take some existing 'test method' in order to
have an internationally acceptable system for rating and ranking stoves.  We
have to solve fundamental technical issues first.  I have noticed subtle
changes to the text of communications referring to the development of an ISO
standard that proclaim that the 'Lima consensus' which was 15 mostly
Americans with a historical involvement in the WBT agreeing that the WBT was
the right way to proceed. In fact they agreed on a certain version of the
WBT. Is this correct? I do not want to misrepresent the decision. I was
disturbed to hear that one comment made, when proposing the WBT as 'the
method' was, "It is a good job Crispin is not here." Why? Because I would
have objected the fact the WBT has not been independently validated as fit
for purpose, that some of the metrics are not scientifically validated, and
that it (certainly at that time) gives wrong answers to questions it asks.
Those are pretty serious shortfalls.

I read lately that it was 'international organisations' that agreed to this
method at Lima. I don't think so.  'International organisations' were hardly
in a position to make such an agreement without first having a ground-up
examination of the needs for such a test and evaluation method. And that did
not happen.

It did not happen again when the IWA meeting was held. Again we were given
(after a public comment period) the same old WBT with some edited metrics
that failed not only to address the shortfalls of the old WBT's but again
avoided a ground-up re-examination of what we are supposed to be asking and
delivering to the stakeholders. An examination of the WBT 4.1 as it then was
reveals serious shortcomings both mathematically and conceptually. (In the
interim most of the math problems have been addressed, but not the metrics
or concepts. Everyone is trying to contribute to this, I believe.)

If the ISO process is a repeat performance of the IWA, I expect to be again
shown a dressed up version of the WBT with the significant and fundamental
questions still going unasked and therefore unanswered.

The Lima meeting and the IWA meeting are being presented as having
represented this much-needed consultation. They were not. They were brief
and failed to address many technical points.  That said, it does not address
the missing portions of a meaningful test evaluation system. I am speaking
of not providing an opportunity to examine the fundamental suppositions and
the theoretical framework of a requested and supplied metric. Entrenching
this in an ISO standard with a 'Rosetta stone' of conversions is impossible
if there are fundamental gaps or defects in the concepts that are embodied
in the 'baseline' measurement system.

While I applaud the effort that is being applied to this matter - an
internationally acceptable standard - there is a curious devotion to the WBT
that is not justifiable. If we do not work out how to address fundamentals,
there is not much point in putting on finishing touches.

In short, getting a precise answer to the wrong questions is not helpful.

Regards

Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/101170f7/attachment.html>