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

[Ronal W. Larson]

Hi all:

	See below

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Nikhil, Ron,
>  
> Nikhil, this is probably the third time you are asking me that same question:
> « What are the proofs that the WBT did harm anybody? »
>  
> And my answer hasn’t changed, so I’ll tell you for the third time: « I have no proof, there are no proofs, because it has never been studied ».
> Ask me that same question again, I’ll answer the same thing.

	[RWL1:  I wasn’t in this, but I like Nikhil’s question - and not surprised it wasn’t answered.
>  
> If you have 30.5 million dollars from the Gates Foundation to do a 5-year longitudinal study, please be my guest and lead the way.
> And let’s wait for the report conclusions to contemplate if maybe we should act.
	[RWL2:  This makes no sense.  I must have missed something about Gates and $30.5 Million.
>  
> In the absence of that, we need to think carefully, and act carefully. But we need to act.
	[RWL3:  Yup.  Dropping the WBT is one good example of something to avoid, when the vast majority of users are expressing no concern (and I will be reading the nice list of articles you provided. Thanks for the list - which I don’t recall being given before.
>  
> Nikhil, Ron, it’s my turn to ask you questions:
> ·         There’s a loophole in the emission testing system of Volkswagen. It allows cheating. But, you say we have no way to clearly know how emissions are harmful to the population. So, we shouldn’t care if the engine is clean or not, and if the test is unreliable or not, because we don’t know the effects of emissions on health anyways.
> So should we change the system or not? Should we ask Volkswagen to use a testing system that is reliable?
	[RWL4:  Volkswagen got clobbered; they got away with nothing.
> ·         The NASA realize some of its calculations basically find that 1 + 1 = 3. Those calculations are actually present in many of their research projects, for various technologies. But they have no way to know how much impact it had on the projects, because the projects are still going, there are technologies being developed, all is seemingly quite fine.
> Should the mistake be corrected or not?
	[RWL5:  I know of no example of NASA coming up with 3 instead af 2.  Yours?
>  
> I have an other question for both of you:
> ·         How do you measure the impact of the unreliability of the WBT? Do you have a methodology?
	[RWL6:  I see no reason to measure the unreliability of the WBT (when it meets my standards) - but sure there have to be standard methods. Standard deviations are already given.   What would you propose.?

Ron
>  
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
> 
>  <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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171215/70e71d8e/attachment.html>