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

Mon Dec 11 19:39:11 CST 2017

Dear Ron,

You have gone pretty far in the past with fallacious reasoning, but this email takes the cake. We are now in uncharted territory.

Basically, this is your whole argumentation here:

"I say they are valid because they are so widely used"

Ron, please re-read 7 times this sentence out loud just to measure how ridiculous it is.

I'll tell you other things people widely do:

·         People widely eat McDonalds

·         People widely believe in sorcery and spirits

·         People widely believe in different kind of gods

·         People widely believed the sun was rotating around the Earth

So many people can't be wrong, ain't it?

How are people supposed to know how the WBT works? How are they supposed to know that it is not reliable?

Those who advocate(d) for the WBT while aware of the issues are responsible of this state of affairs.

I'll tell you what happened. A group of people invented the WBT. There was nothing at the time, some protocol had to be created and used. It's perfectly fine. Then more people started to use it. Without reviewing it. Testing reports started to pile. At some point, a few studies started to be published pointing at some serious flaws in the WBT. No one bothered about that, the WBT continued to be used, reports kept piling. Then more studies, on other issues, were published. Still no one was taking action. Sunk cost. The further you go, the more difficult it is to go back. The WBT has never been reviewed, except by the studies I was mentioning, and they all say there are serious problems with it.

« I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »

Why? Please explain.

« There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its validity. »

Of course, they have never studied the WBT, never reviewed it! They have been told to use the WBT, so they tested, and they reported. The WBT was supposed to have had the state-of-the-art research and updates, why would they not use it?

« 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 »

If something is not in a peer-reviewed technical journal, it doesn’t exist?

There is a serious rationale explaining the problems and why the WBT is broken. The peer-reviewed articles explain why it is not reliable.

There is one little more step to take, and this step, researchers are not willing to take it. Because it is not their job, or so they think. Scientists usually think their role is to state facts. From facts, conclusions and actions can be taken.

This step is left to political actors, NGOs like Winrock, international organizations like GACC, implementers, or activists.

« 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). »

How so? How should the DE be used then?

You talk a lot about the Denominator Equation, but to me, it is another matter. I don’t have an opinion about it, and I haven’t seen convincing facts from you who put into question what Tami and Crispin said.

You can continue the conversation about the DE with them, but whether the DE is valid or not has no impact on all the other questions about the unreliability of the WBT.

With or without the DE, the WBT is unreliable.

« It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary. »

Who said that? Certainly not me nor the proponents of alternative testing. Laboratory testing is useful, and laboratories are useful. The WBT is not. CSI and HTP are laboratory protocols. You refused to read these protocols.

« It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn out well using the DE.  Exceedingly well. »

Not sure this in a paper would pass the peer-reviewing ...

« It seems that those who argue against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well. »

Who then? Give names. Stop just making allegations.

« 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. »

Please say who are those persons and what are those other motives? Do you have facts corroborating that?

« This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that fully justifies use of the WBT and DE. »

How? Can you explain?

I’ll tell you something Ron, just to make things very clear:

·         I think the TLUD technology is by far the most exciting and promising stove technology right now, and that includes the char-making stoves

·         I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it is one of the main threats for the humanity and other living species on this planet

All that is beyond the point.

We are now talking about the WBT, and there are scientific facts showing it is unreliable, and so far you haven’t been able to reply to my questions, and to prove these facts wrong.

Ron, you are supposed to be a scientist, to have a critical mind, to judge on facts only, and not on trends nor emotions.

Please let’s discuss facts.

This sentence: « they are valid because they are so widely used » would have founding fathers and mothers of science throw themselves out the window, if they could.

Best,

Xavier

De : Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net] 
Envoyé : samedi 9 décembre 2017 06:22
À : Discussion of biomass; Xavier Brandao
Cc : Nikhil Desai; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Paul Anderson; Julien Winter
Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]

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  <mailto:franke at cruzio.com> franke at cruzio.com
Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2017 21:56
À :  <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu> 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.  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
 <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 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/

---
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/20171212/1c7e2acd/attachment.html>