[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Fri Dec 15 18:39:21 CST 2017
Xavier et al:
I have just sent out two other messages with your name - that answer this below a bit. Obviously I am not going to respond again to topics that haven’t changed, but I like your long list of “WBT negatives” papers and will try to get through a good many this weekend.
I happened to have found another by some of the same authors that I think points out the value of what is now going on in the ISO process. That paper on TLUDs is found at: https://ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/viewFile/2963/pdf <https://ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/viewFile/2963/pdf>
Effects of biomass pellet composition on the thermal and emissions performances of a TLUD cooking stove Zhang Zongxi1,2,3, Sun Zhenfeng4 , Zhang Yinghua5 , Ding Hongyan6 , Zhou Yuguang1,2,3* , Zhang Yixiang1,2,3,7, Riaz Ahmad1,2,3, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott2,3, Dong Renjie1,2,3
This achieves a record low for TLUDs of 10% efficiency - whereas Julien, Kirk, Paul and others are at 40% and more. I’ll try tp get some comments in tomorrow on that, but would love to hear (on list or off-list) from anyone who has knowledge of any of these dozen below (to save me time):
Ron
> Lombardi F., Riva F., Bonamini G., Barbieri J., Colombo E., Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments, 06/02/2017 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X>
>
> · Lombardi F., Riva F., Colombo E., Guidelines for reporting and analysing laboratory test results for biomass cooking stoves, 01/2017 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an> d_analysing_laboratory_test_results_for_biomass_cooking_stoves
>
> · Riva F., Lombardi F., Pavarini C., Colombo E., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves, 09/07/2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_>of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three__Stone_fire_cookstoves
>
> · Bailis R., Berrueta V., Chengappa C., Dutta K., Edwards R., Masera O., Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70., 2007 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type> =pdf
>
> · Pendelton Taylor R., The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, 2009 http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd <http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd>
>
> · L’Orange C., DeFoort M., Willson B., Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and development of an improved testing protocol, 2009 https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf <https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf>
>
> · Gorrity M., Trujillo G., Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of expanded uncertainty for WBT, 2013 http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%2 <http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%252>0Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%2 0Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf
>
> · Ding H., Liu J., Zhang Y., Dong R., Pang C., Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols, 2013 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty> pe=pdf
>
> · Zhang Y., Pemberton-Pigott C., Zhang Z., Ding H., Zhou Y., Dong R., Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11., 2014 http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/ <http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/> To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged alphabetically).
>
> · Wang Y., Sohn MD., How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate., 2014 http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf <http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf>
>
> · Lloyd P., Annegarn H., Pemberton-Pigott C., Towards a standard for clean solidfuelled cookstoves, 2015 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle> an_solid-fuelled_cookstoves
>
> · Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Zhou Y., Riaz A., Pemberton-Pigott C., Annegarn H., Dong R., Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves, 2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_>errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves
>
Deferring response on most of this below. Ron
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> [RWL1: Sorry. I stand by my statement. I meant in the context of arguing about whether the earth is flat or round. More in closing.
> Then I don’t know what to say.
> OK, maybe more in closing as well.
>
> « How are people supposed to know how the WBT works?
> [RWL2: I’m trying to hurry this, so I hope others will see if there are others better than found in my google search “water boiling test EPA stoves” »
> I’m not sure I understand what you mean, but there’s one thing that is very clear.
> When you are a manufacturer or project leader, and you read the WBT protocol and follow it, and record your test results, you have no way to know that the protocol is very broken inside and that its results are meaningless.
> You would need to be a researcher knowledgeable about heat principles and test procedures, and to purposely study the WBT, and challenge it, and then only, you can find there’s something wrong with it.
> Hence the high number of tests done with the WBT. People just didn’t know.
> The fact that so many people eat food that was grown while using Monsanto pesticides means that the farmers proved Monsanto pesticides are harmless?
>
> They’ll know when someone writes a paper on that topic in a peer-reviewed technical journal.
> Do you think a small company in India or South America scans every week the Elsevier publications to see if a, say, team from Milano published a paper with an obscure title about protocols for cooking stoves?
> Or do you think they’ll go to the GACC website, to the page with protocols because the nice lady from GACC told them so at the last conference? Tell me?
>
> I know of no article (hope there is one) on why testing labs get different results than in the field.
> WBT results, not CSI results.
> Yet everyone says that WBT get different results in the lab, than in the field, even the Aprovecho.
>
> When I have watched lab testing, the dedicated tester NEVER left the front of the stove. I’ll bet there are huge differences in the results between rocket and TLD type stoves - as there is almost nothing todo with the latter during a test.
> Yep, so you just said very well yourself why a WBT is not reliable. So much depends on the cook, and virtually every test is different, because testing conditions fluctuate so much. So comparing WBT results are meaningless. Even for one model tested in the same lab.
>
> The “who advocated” have overwhelmingly approved it - and are happy with the “state of affairs”.
> They have never reviewed it. Have they really approved it? They just let it spread. And now they are happy, or let’s say they find more convenient to remain silent and not admit their mistake.
> Who says the WBT is a good protocol? No one except you.
>
> Where do I go to find a corroboration of your version of this (sinister?) “group of people”?
> There is no sinister group of people. Back in 1982, there was, I’m sure, committed individuals who wanted and needed a testing protocol. That was I believe the VITA NGO, that was Sam Baldwin.
> It’s fine, it was needed, I have no problem with that.
> It is the following years that were problematic, when cookstove testers and researchers started to be warned with the serious issues of the WBT.
>
> « « I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »
> Why? Please explain.
> [RWL6: I gave a full set of reasons, which are following as Ia-If and IIa-IId (which labels I wish you had kept - to save me time) »
> I read your reasons, and they haven’t convinced me at all. You have completely occulted the questions I asked you.
> There are several issues, you are not able to say they don’t exist.
> You cannot deny the issues, you cannot answer my questions, so you just don’t avoid speaking about them, you talk about something else instead.
> Answer each one of my questions and prove with undeniable evidence that the WBT is a reliable protocol. Then my position on the WBT will have become devoid of value.
>
> You underestimate the group you are maligning
> Who reviewed the WBT Ron? Where are the peer-reviewed publications?
>
> Care to give any names for this group that has never studied the WBT?
> The EPA, the GACC, the Aprovecho Research Center, the D-Lab, Winrock. Probably others.
> Strong warnings were emitted, proofs about the WBT issues piled, but they never put it into question.
> The food was poisoned, yet they chose no to look at them and keep serving them. They never asked or worked on a review of the WBT, nor on a mere study of the WBT.
> That was their jobs, they are paid for that, they chose not to do it.
>
> [RWL8(a): Many dozens of experts have approved it over the last several years in the ISO process. Where have you received your version of the voting? We are talking here of I believe 25 countries.
> Who? When? Give names, give me documents.
> Ron, I hope, I really hope you are not talking about the Lima consensus, and the signing of the IWA, because I was at the latter, and we all agree it was forced-fed to us.
> We were pressed during the whole workshop to adopt a text, even imperfect, so we could correct it later on. We were pressed to sign, because it was said it was be the only way forward.
> We never ever wrote the sentence « the WBT is not the only valid protocol ».
> Don’t try to dishonestly take that as a proof that dozens of « « experts » » have reviewed the WBT, approved it, and still approve it. Because it is a misrepresentation of the truth Ron, it is a big lie.
>
> Where is the evidence that the WBT is so bad?
> You must be kidding.
> I showed you the evidence so many times Ron, but you refuse to see it and brush it off every time. That is intellectual dishonesty.
> « Some of WBT critical issues remain unsolved. In particular, the main weakness of the WBT concerns its real-life relevance. […] Criticism about WBT concerns also the repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers claiming that it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy. […] As a matter of fact, uncertainties related to temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region lead to high variability between test replicates.
> A lot of debate has been made around formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency, which is often interpreted as the most immediate and distinctive stove performance parameter. Studies from Bailis et al. highlighted how relying on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of high and low power cooking tasks
> among the target population, can lead to misleading interpretations. Furthermore, Zhang et al. and Jetter et al. questioned the scientific meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at simmering.
> Finally, some unsolved issues concerning statistical significance of data are worth mentioning. WBT 4.2.3 includes “Statistic Lessons for Performance Testing”. The appendix specifies that the minimum number of test replicates for each model of stove should be three, […] Wang et al. investigated this topic using a simplified version of the WBT 3.0 and demonstrated that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that even more replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in performance between two or more stoves. »
>
> · Lombardi F., Riva F., Bonamini G., Barbieri J., Colombo E., Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments, 06/02/2017 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X>
>
> · Lombardi F., Riva F., Colombo E., Guidelines for reporting and analysing laboratory test results for biomass cooking stoves, 01/2017 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an> d_analysing_laboratory_test_results_for_biomass_cooking_stoves
>
> · Riva F., Lombardi F., Pavarini C., Colombo E., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves, 09/07/2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_>of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three__Stone_fire_cookstoves
>
> · Bailis R., Berrueta V., Chengappa C., Dutta K., Edwards R., Masera O., Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70., 2007 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type> =pdf
>
> · Pendelton Taylor R., The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, 2009 http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd <http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd>
>
> · L’Orange C., DeFoort M., Willson B., Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and development of an improved testing protocol, 2009 https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf <https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf>
>
> · Gorrity M., Trujillo G., Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of expanded uncertainty for WBT, 2013 http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%2 <http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%252>0Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%2 0Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf
>
> · Ding H., Liu J., Zhang Y., Dong R., Pang C., Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols, 2013 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty> pe=pdf
>
> · Zhang Y., Pemberton-Pigott C., Zhang Z., Ding H., Zhou Y., Dong R., Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11., 2014 http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/ <http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/> To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged alphabetically).
>
> · Wang Y., Sohn MD., How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate., 2014 http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf <http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf>
>
> · Lloyd P., Annegarn H., Pemberton-Pigott C., Towards a standard for clean solidfuelled cookstoves, 2015 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle> an_solid-fuelled_cookstoves
>
> · Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Zhou Y., Riaz A., Pemberton-Pigott C., Annegarn H., Dong R., Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves, 2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_>errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves
>
> What do you do of all that Ron?
>
> Where do you get your information that researchers were so lax?
> Dan Sweeney writes a complacent handbook with not one mention of the WBT issues. Same with Winrock. Aprovecho continues to deceiptfully provide « « ISO » » testing certificates based on a testing protocol that is useless.
>
> I continue to believe in my friends
> That’s what it is all about. Beliefs. Faith. Not facts.
> Even friends make mistakes.
> You say great injustice is done to your friends who kept advocating the use of the WBT despite all the warnings.
> You feel the need to be very laudable towards them. Be my guest.
> I’ll tell you, I’m sure they are fine people. They probably are hardworking, nice and polite, help their neighbours, give their sit to the old ladies in the bus, and probably truly would like the world to be a better place.
> It’s super.
> You can decide to write pages and pages of praises to them if you want, but this is not really helping our discussion.
>
> [RWL13(e):
> [RWL14e:
> No, I have zero opinion about the DE.
> If it is a solid equation that is important to take into account the benefits of the TLUDs, fine, then it could also be part of another protocol.
> It doesn’t change anything to how faulty the WBT is.
>
> [RWL15e: I hope I don’t have to repeat many more times that it IS reliable - and you have not proven the converse.
> Yes I did prove it was unrealiable, but you weren’t listening.
> You have not proven it is reliable. At this point, we are more talking about faith than anything else.
>
> [RWL16(f): I’m glad to hear some of this from you. Thanks. I am referring to remarks by Crispin - and hope others can give an exact quote his in the last two weeks - on not needing a laboratory.
> I did NOT refuse to read the CSI and HTP; I have read them. I do not claim to be an expert on them - but am pretty sure they heat water (I can’t keep all the acronyms straight). Please give cites for each - and I’ll report back to this list on their use of heating water (e1) and measuring char (e2). Inexplicably, there are some test procedures that seem to feel that charcoal is a made-up entity, that never needed to be measured.
> OK, maybe we are making some progress then.
> Yes, the other lab protocols heat water.
> No, they are not unreliable like the WBT.
>
> If you were a major sponsor or stove buyer, would you prefer to know Tier levels or not?
> If you believe stoves have health impacts, would you pay attention to Tier levels?
> Yes, they are quite convenient.
> If they mean nothing, I certainly wouldn’t want to hear about them.
>
> How are you going to get repeatability on pollutant release without a WBT?
> With the CSI protocol, for example.
>
> [RWL:(19c): I’ll continue my practice of not naming such. But they tend to talk about the beauty of coal-fired stoves.
> The “ acts” come from what they say on this list and off-line conversations over about 10 years. I suggest looking at who refers us to the “Watt’s Up With That” site (the site given most credit in denier circles)
> A denier might be wrong on climate, but right on something else.
> If Crispin tells you something about cookstoves, will you always say he is wrong, because he is a denier?
> Crispin is not always right, he also makes mistakes.
> Has he not been right quite a number of times in this list, on various subjects?
> Don’t judge the message by how the messenger look. Analyse and countradict the facts only.
>
> [RWL20 (d): TLUD stoves have had only a very limited testing period where the char was placed in soil. Dr. Winter greatly surprise me last week when he told us how much the soil improvement spect of his stove has influenced consumer reaction. Users were making money while cooking.
> If there were no Tier system giving (appropriate and accurate) value to char-making, then those stoves and users would not receive the credit they deserve (and the world needs) for carbon removal.
> Would Julien Winter have developed his stove without Tiers or the WBT, but with a more reliable testing protocol? Maybe, maybe not? I’d love to hear his take on that.
>
> I specifically asked the main author whether he concerns about the WBT itself and he said no.
> Who was it?
>
> I also believe that everyone has and should have emotions.
> Yes, but they shouldn’t cloud one’s judgement.
> I think they cloud yours.
>
> I go back to whether you would say the same if we were arguing about the earth’s sphericity?
> I say the Earth is spheric because there are studies and empirical evidences it is.
> I don’t say Earth is spheric because everyone say so.
> You don’t say the WBT is a reliable protocol because there are studies and proofs it is. It was never reviewed. You have no study Ron, which will conclude: « after careful reviewing of the WBT, its metrics and calculations, we can now say with very strong confidence that the testing protocol can reliably predict stove performance. »
> You say it is reliable because everyone used it, and many still use it. Note that no one affirms now the WBT is reliable. But everyone used and use it out of habit or because it is convenient or because the GACC and the TC-285 didn’t tell them they could
> Do you see the difference?
>
> Ron, what you do is a logical fallacy, this is something that you keep doing, it is called Appeal to the People.
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtothePeople <http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtothePeople>
> Or Ad Numerum, Appeal to the Gallery, Appeal to the Masses, Argument from Popularity, Argumentum ad Populum, Common Practice, Mob Appeal, Past Practice, Peer Pressure, and Traditional Wisdom
>
> Maybe the majority is right regarding climate change, the Earth sphericity.
> Maybe the majority using the WBT was wrong.
>
> Anyway, I’m gonna do my own appeal to the people, because this is the only kind of argument that you hear. As I said before: there is now a majority of people who think it is not reliable and we should stop using it rather than people who think it is reliable and we should keep using it.
>
> Remember Ron, before the Earth was considered spheric, maybe there was a majority of people saying it was flat.
> Would you have shouted with them it was flat, if you lived at that time?
>
> But there are questions whether this debate of flat vs spheric really existed.
> What there was, was a majority of people believing the Sun was rotating around the Earth. Copernic was alone to think, yet he was right.
> Would you have said like everyone else Ron, that the Sun was rotating around the Earth?
>
> There’s no merit in sheepish behaviour. It has rarely been synonym of scientific progress.
>
> Now the only important question remains: is there a serious problem with the WBT and should we stop using it?
>
> The answer will be respectively no and yes, when we will have responded to these questions Ron, and I am counting on you:
> · Do you contest the issues about the real-life relevance of the WBT? Why?
> · What do you think about the WBT concerns on the repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers claiming that it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy? Why?
> · Do you contest there are uncertainties related to temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region that lead to high variability between test replicates? Why?
> · What do you think about the formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency ? Why?
> · Do you contest that relying on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of high and low power cooking tasks among the target population, can lead to misleading interpretations? Why?
> · Don’t you question the scientific meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at simmering? Why?
> · Do you contest there are unsolved issues concerning statistical significance of data ? Why?
> · Do you contest the demonstration that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that even more replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in performance between two or more stoves? Why?
>
> And again, my last question:
> · Who reviewed the WBT Ron? Where are the peer-reviewed publications who have demonstrated the WBT is a reliable testing protocol?
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> De : Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>]
> Envoyé : mardi 12 décembre 2017 06:43
> À : Xavier Brandao
> Cc : Discussion of biomass; Nikhil Desai; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Paul Anderson; Julien Winter
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]
>
> Hi all - see inserts below:
>
>
>> On Dec 11, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> [RWL1: Sorry. I stand by my statement. I meant in the context of arguing about whether the earth is flat or round. More in closing.
>
>
>
> How are people supposed to know how the WBT works?
> [RWL2: I’m trying to hurry this, so I hope others will see if there are others better than found in my google search “water boiling test EPA stoves”
>
>
> How are they supposed to know that it is not reliable?
> [RWL3: They’ll know when someone writes a paper on that topic in a peer-reviewed technical journal. I know of no article (hope there is one) on why testing labs get different results than in the field. But a big part has to be how good the testing labs are. I doubt there are many cases when the testing lab gives the lower efficiency. When I have watched lab testing, the dedicated tester NEVER left the front of the stove. I’ll bet there are huge differences in the results between rocket and TLD type stoves - as there is almost nothing todo with the latter during a test.
>
>
> Those who advocate(d) for the WBT while aware of the issues are responsible of this state of affairs.
> [RWL4: The “who advocated” have overwhelmingly approved it - and are happy with the “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.
> [RWL5: I gave a reference a few months ago to Dr. Bond that was about 100 years old using the WBT - with the “DE”. Where do I go to find a corroboration of your version of this (sinister?) “group of people”?
>
>
> « I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »
> Why? Please explain.
> [RWL6: I gave a full set of reasons, which are following as Ia-If and IIa-IId (which labels I wish you had kept - to save me time)
>
>
> « 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!
> [RWL7(a): You underestimate the group you are maligning. Care to give any names for this group that has never studied the WBT?
>
>
> 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?
> [RWL8(a): Many dozens of experts have approved it over the last several years in the ISO process. Where have you received your version of the voting? We are talking here of I believe 25 countries.
>
>
> « 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?
> [RWL9(b): No it can exist - just not to be believed whole cloth. Where is the evidence that the WBT is so bad?
>
>
> There is a serious rationale explaining the problems and why the WBT is broken. The peer-reviewed articles explain why it is not reliable.
> [RWL10(b): It may exist, but you haven’t told where to find these article are on unreliability..
>
>
> There is one little more step to take, and this step, researchers are not willing to take it.
> [RWL11(b): I claim they have been taken - and we will see it when the WGII report is released. Where do you get your information that researchers were so lax?
>
>
> 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.
> [RWL12(b): I continue to believe in my friends - AND because I have seen nothing in print to deny what they tell me. I know a lot of scientists and none fit your description; they do a lot more than “state facts”.
>
> NOTE: My items c and d are missing. They are (important-to-me) references to the ISO process - which you are saying is wrong. You need these to understand my point (e), coming up.
>
>
> « 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?
> [RWL13(e): Just as it has been proposed for about a century in hundreds of papers: e3=e1/(1-e2). A VERY solid equation where every term is understood - including the negative sign.
> I have not had time to work up a proof using a triangular plot - the three corners are A= e1 = stove energy; B=e2 = charcoal energy; C= inefficiency. The sum of A+B+C anywhere in the interior of the triangle is unity. The input energy can ONLY go these three ways. I’m trying to get time to show where the DE shows up on this chart. You can’t do this on normal x-y plots. I hope someone will take this hint and beat me to it.
> The DE tells one how to move from the middle of the triangle to the edge where B = e2 = 0.
> I challenge you and anyone on the list to give any other formula that fairly gives credit to a co-product that can have value (in some cases) large than the cooking value. In the case of a few percentage of char, it is the ONLY way to give a valid (larger) value for e1.
>
>
> 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.
> [RWL14e: I know you talk to Crispin who has argued strongly against the DE, but I doubt Dr. Bond is in agreement. The “convincing facts” are in the triangle diagram - plus common sense and the agreement of the vast majority of those who have fought to keep the DE in place.
> It does seem to me that you have a strong opinion on it.
>
>
> 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.
> [RWL15e: I hope I don’t have to repeat many more times that it IS reliable - and you have not proven the converse.
>
>
> « 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.
> [RWL16(f): I’m glad to hear some of this from you. Thanks. I am referring to remarks by Crispin - and hope others can give an exact quote his in the last two weeks - on not needing a laboratory.
> I did NOT refuse to read the CSI and HTP; I have read them. I do not claim to be an expert on them - but am pretty sure they heat water (I can’t keep all the acronyms straight). Please give cites for each - and I’ll report back to this list on their use of heating water (e1) and measuring char (e2). Inexplicably, there are some test procedures that seem to feel that charcoal is a made-up entity, that never needed to be measured.
>
> Note to others: My point (g) is also missing - on the DE - where I said what I just repeated.
>
> The following are my four points on the Tier system.
>
>
>
> « 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 …
> [RWL17(a): Me either. I am here telling everyone where I am coming from - that Tiers are important to me (And thankfully they have NOT been dropped). Without the Tier system, I am sure there would be much less progress. (Thinking here of a message tonight from Kirk Harris.)
> If you were a major sponsor or stove buyer, would you prefer to know Tier levels or not?
> If you believe stoves have health impacts, would you pay attention to Tier levels? How are you going to get repeatability on pollutant release without a WBT?
>
>
>
> « 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.
> [RWL18(b): I ask anyone who is a supporter of TLUDs whether they also oppose Tiers. We all know that winners rarely critique the rules.
> I chose not to embarrass anyone specific. Do you really think I made a mistake there?
>
>
> « 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?
> [RWL:(19c): I’ll continue my practice of not naming such. But they tend to talk about the beauty of coal-fired stoves.
> The “ acts” come from what they say on this list and off-line conversations over about 10 years. I suggest looking at who refers us to the “Watt’s Up With That” site (the site given most credit in denier circles)
>
>
>
> « 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?
> [RWL20 (d): TLUD stoves have had only a very limited testing period where the char was placed in soil. Dr. Winter greatly surprise me last week when he told us how much the soil improvement spect of his stove has influenced consumer reaction. Users were making money while cooking.
> If there were no Tier system giving (appropriate and accurate) value to char-making, then those stoves and users would not receive the credit they deserve (and the world needs) for carbon removal.
>
>
> 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
> [RWL20: Thanks for the clarification. I had not been thinking of you in the WUWT camp
>
>
> All that is beyond the point.
> [RWL21: Nope - it is my main 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.
> [RWL22: If you provided any scientific facts above I failed to see them. The main peer-reviewed paper claiming anything like this was saying there need to be more replications. I specifically asked the main author whether he concerns about the WBT itself and he said no. I asked for specifics and you have provided none.
>
>
> Ron, you are supposed to be a scientist, to have a critical mind, to judge on facts only, and not on trends nor emotions.
> [RWL23: Yup my point IIa was supposed to tell everyone that this is a topic on which I get emotional. That does not mean that I should or did or would want to ignore facts. I think I have provide plenty above. You have not. I’m waiting.
> I also believe that everyone has and should have emotions. It wouldn’t surprise me that some of the best papers come from those with emotional attachments.
> I should also admit here that I get emotional when people like Nikhil give no credit to anything that EPA (mostly the EPA stove group can be called scientists). He is not acting in a scientific manner at all (close to zero reference to peer-reviewed literature). Same for his critique of GACC - totally unwarranted (and emotional and un-scientific).
>
>
> 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.
> [RWL: I go back to whether you would say the same if we were arguing about the earth’s sphericity? You are arguing against a position which has major support in the stove improvement community. I’m glad you are not a denier, but your argument against terms like “97%” are exactly those of deniers. I repeat: show me a cogent article in print on why the WBT (and the DE) should not be accepted without reservation.
>
> Ron
>
> (re-read, but I have to stop now, given the hour.)
>
>
>
> 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/20171215/81293009/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list