[Stoves] personal pollution monitors (Andrew)

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:  cc Crispin (who I know from later exchanges did receive the now missing attachment)

	I just now received two messages from Andrew Heggie saying that I had exceeded the 1.5 Mbyte limit on messages sent yesterday - because I attached the file (which was 1.8 MB) from GACC shown below.  And they asked to re-send staying below 1.5 MB.  I just re-sent the second one;  this is the first, now also being re-sent.

	I strongly recommend downloading and saving this protocol document.  Obviously a lot of work went into it - 89 pages worth.  When you get to the GACC site given below, you need to click on the top (most recent) version.

	I am asking Crispin in this exchange to use specific equations or pages in that document and its claimed errors to explain his unhappiness with the WBT.

Ron


> On Dec 25, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Crispin and cc list:
> 
> 	I have just skimmed through a very lengthy document (found at:  http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html>) that includes (the latest, 2014?) WBT protocols:  
> <wbt-4-2-3-protocol-english.pdf>
> 
> 	I presume you are still unhappy that this document gives a report that shows a TLUD making char can have a high efficiency?
> 
> 	I find the weight of the fuel being prominent - so don’t understand your statement below on this topic.   How about picking two pages/equations here that you think has been done incorrectly?  (No more than 2, please, at first.)
> 
> Ron 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 25, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Andrew 
>> 
>> I wasn't implying either density or ‎mental lethargy! I was really asking if the gravity of the implications of making flippant claims about stove 'impact' are apparent and accepted. 
>> 
>> For ten years now, as confirmed by Dean Still, I have been raising a rukus about the multiple conceptual and mathematical errors still contained in the WBT. The gravity and implications have been widely accepted outside the immediate community of old timers but only minor corrections have been accepted in, particularly, the US-based stove community. By that, I mean ANSI, Aprovecho, Berkeley, Colorado, EPA, GACC. The ABCEG. 
>> 
>> Why this resistance to simple facts? There are very real, harmful consequences to this hide-boundedness. The current call for refugee stoves by the UN, to be shipped in batches of 10,000, demands they be tested using the WBT (the tender document links to multiple versions of it) and the first criterion is 'E' which they believe is 'fuel efficiency'‎, as in, the fuel consumed during the test. The WBT doesn't report the fuel consumed during the test! Nowhere on the form is there a place to enter the mass of fuel consumed to perform the test. It lies. The tender document also specifies that the test used must be able to replicate results within 1/3 of the tier span, then calls for 'tier 4' performance. The WBT they insist on cannot replicate results within that spec! It can't do it with 10 tests, nor 20, nor 100, so I am reliably told. There is no way a WBT can place a stove on tier 4 as any field test will show. 
>> 
>> This failure is being reported in paper after paper. Someone spending a lot of money is going to notice. The stove developing and promoting community is facing a loss of credibility of Clintonesque proportion‎. Many other organisations are going to experience similar credibility problems once the gravity of the misrepresentations of the 'health impact' are grasped by those who are paying for these stoves. 
>> 
>> To make progress we have to have clear guidelines on how to create valid performance tests and potential impact claims, hence my questions put to Nikhil. It is becoming clear what we cannot claim. We should set a clear path ‎to a believable future. 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> Crispin 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 December 2016 at 23:30, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > I hope this is sinking in, not just for you but for the stove community in
>> > general.
>> 
>> I don't know about sinking in, perhaps I'm slow on the uptake or dense?
>> 
>> I do think it's a meaningful discussion
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> 
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> 
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161226/3d61c9b1/attachment.html>