[Stoves] "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement"

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ron,

 

« I see no reason to slam those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement. »

Some conversations are seasonal. They appear, vanish, and reappear after some time.

We are here because we want to discuss some important questions, explore them thoroughly, and try to shed light rather than cast shadow. I think we need to be clear and specific about what we claim.

 

Ron, how about we continue the conversation where we left it? Because a few things remain unclear to me.

Last time we were discussing, I was asking you some questions in my email of the 02/09, and you were not answering.

 

Back in August, you were saying :

« « The WBT IS valuable »

And I was asking you:

« Can you explain what is valuable about the WBT? »

And if I understood well your answers, you said that the WBT is valuable because:

1.      the TLUDs shine at it

2.      it has tier rankings, who are the right way to proceed with stove improvement

 

What if tier rankings are not scientifically valid?

Lombardi and al. say in their paper of February 2017: « An important consequence of these considerations is that the Tier of Performance of a given stove, assigned based on the results from WBT or similar protocols, may result in a not reliable performance indicator for technology selection. »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X 

 

You listed the experts that were, according to you, currently, still advocating continued use of the WBT:

·         Jim Jetter

·         Ranyee Chiang

·         John Mitchell

·         Tami Bond

·         Michael Johnson

·         Kirk Smith

·         Tom Miles

·         Andrew Heggie

·         Dean Still

                                 

I told you Ranyee Chiang said we were beyond the WBT.

I talked to Jim Jetter and he did not come accross to me as, currently, a strong supporter of the WBT anymore.

I talked to Tami Bond, and she said that the WBT had things to be criticized, and that we needed to move forward, and not look backward (the WBT). I don’t think she strongly supports the WBT.

I talked to Kirk Smith in Delhi, and he didn’t seem to have an opinion, neither for nor against the WBT.

Dean Still is strongly supporting the WBT and its use.

 

Then Andrew reacted on the list and said he neither approved nor disapproved the WBT.

 

Which would leave as WBT supporters, according to you:

·         John Mitchell

·         Michael Johnson

·         Tom Miles

·         Dean Still

 

Not even you are a supporter of the WBT, because you said you were no expert and had no opinion about it.

 

I sent you this link with alternative protocols

 <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing

and asked you what was so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP.

 

You didn’t even deign to read them, and brushed them off altogether, pretending they were basically WBTs.

Boiling water in a protocol doesn’t mean the protocol is a Water Boiling Test.

 

So, could you please answer or try to answer my questions, recapitulated below:

1.      Is the WBT valuable to you because the TLUD shine at it and it has tier rankings, who are the right way to proceed with stove improvement?

2.      What do you think of Lombardi and al. analysis that tier rankings may not be reliable?

3.      Who are the ”experts” advocating continued use of the WBT?

4.      Who are the ”experts” who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement?

5.      What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP?

 

Thank you,


Xavier



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171206/0bbf83e0/attachment.html>