[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]

[Ronal W. Larson]

Xavier, list and ccs

	I guess (being the only individual named) I have to take up the challenge.  This is no fun.  I respond because I  find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value.  I apologize for trying to get this out on the day you sent it - and it is late.

	My evidence on the validity of the present WBT (especially including the “denominator equation”  - “DE” =  e1/(1-e2) is below in several parts.  If you respond, please refer to my numbered points, so we can best understand your reasoning. 

Part I- the WBT and DE
		a.  There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its validity.   Those that don’t use the DE also assume there is no char worth keeping track of. I don’t see how that can be a valid reason for not using a DE (and I think they all national stove documents use something like a WBT).
		b.  I know of no article in a peer-reviewed technical journal that gives a rationale for WBT or DE’s discontinuation.  The topic seems unique to this list
		c.  Working group 2 of the of the ongoing ISO TC-285 process recently voted overwhelmingly to retain the “DE”.  I am not aware of even unpublished critiques that make sense (and I ask for such to be part of your response).
		d.  Working group #1 had a very small group ( I’ve heard 7?) carry a virtual tie in saying that the DE should be removed.  Last night, WG#1’s leader,  Professor Tami Bond said I (nd others) could forward an explanatory private memo.  Others can forward more, but I think these sentences are important re the WBT and DE
		"There is a current draft in Working Group 2 regarding controlled laboratory testing (it has a formal name that I can’t remember). Its product is under revision after responding to comments from national standard bodies, and has not been published yet. Some of its features have received some of the same criticisms as were provided on the WBT that is in wide public use, yet other contents are different, as happens through discussion.”
	Dr.  Bond is not here arguing for removal of the DE, but (unfortunately) there will be some confusion because of a very small number who are misinformed about the DE and voted in an irrational position that has benn rebutted by the vast majority of those involved in this ISO process.
		e.  I say misinformed because both Professor Phillip Lloyd and Crispin showed a few months ago they did not know how to use the DE,  (Dr. Lloyd pulled an arbitrary number out of the air in his use of the equation).
		f.  It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary.  They mostly also seem to couple the WBT with un-needed procedures for CO and particulates (because they don’t believe widely reported health statistics).  I say they are valid because they are so widely used.  Often used to save governments money (unhealthy citizens are drains on national economies).  These rejections of the utility of pollutant measurements are almost identical to efforts to downplay climate impacts - caused by pollutants.
		g.  Something like the WBT is used virtually everywhere.  The only places where I believe the DE is not used is where they have not considered char-making to be possible or intelligent or some other unfathomable reason.  I challenge anyone who believes cha-making has the least bit of value to give some other means for bringing char-making into the valuation of a stove.

Part II.  Tiers       Turning to use of the DE as used in the tier structures (and I believe this is the main beef of those opposed to the WBT)
		a.  It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn out well using the DE.  Exceedingly well.  It seems that those who argue against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well.
		b.  I do so now for climate reasons (earlier for forest preservation, health, time-saving and money-making reasons).  My experience on this list is that a large majority of those who put down the WBT and the DE have zero concern about the climate impacts of inefficient and polluting stoves (and especially charcoal-using stoves).  Such beliefs lack appreciation of climate science; those persons must also have other motives - probably money related.
		c.  I claim the Part I arguments justify its use and I am convinced the DE is totally valid (and can only be obtained through a WBT. So I ask all who respond to this to propose a better means of helping advance stove performance than the tier approach with its present use of the DE results.  If not tiers, what?
		d.  This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that fully justifies use of the WBT and DE.  If the DE was dropped from the tier system (as some on this list have proposed), then the work of Julien and his collaborators would be much delayed.  To the disadvantage of those finding a new source of added income.

	It’s late.  I may have to add more - on Lima for instance.

Ron

 
	
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Frank,
>  
> Ahah, there is indeed a pattern, you might have noticed it is usually the following:
> 1.  Someone, usually Ron or a member of the GACC, EPA, Aprovecho, D-Lab or Winrock, innocently drops « WBT is a great protocol to make stove improvements » or « you know, there are many supporters of the WBT », somewhere in a post, a handbook or a toolkit
> 2.  Then, some of us howls in indignation, especially me. I start to rant and sound like a broken record. Then I hand over, once again, the pile of evidence, and ask some very simple straightforward questions.
> 3.  Suddenly the one in 1. very kindly tells me, in a « ho-it-would-be-so-great-to-have-you-there » fashion, to:
> a.  Join the ISO-TC 285 discussions
> b.  Join a certain conference in the United States
> c.  Or becomes suddenly completely mute
> Often it is a., b. then c.
> 4.  Then a few months pass by, and one beautiful day, we are back to step 1.
>  
> At this point it’s not a rabbit hole, it’s more like a rabbit loop, a rabbit loophole.
> 
> Best,
>  
> Xavier
>  
>  
>  
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] De la part de franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
> Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2017 21:56
> À : ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>
> Cc : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]
>  
>  
> Dear Nikhil, Stovers,
>  
> Always great news when we start a new year talking WBT. That because it means we are not still down some rabbit hole someone has sent us to wallow around for a few years on some useless idea only to come to the surface and find us where we started (NOWHERE). But now starting at NOWHERE we must be careful we are not diverted down another rabbit hole. Make sure all project proposals involve the 6-Box system or parts of it. That involves both Field and Lab work. Because that is the only way we get control over the variables and move forward. A lot of work needs be done.
>  
> Regards
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> 
>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <x-msg://68/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>_______________________________________________
> 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/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171208/091e166d/attachment.html>