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

Mon Dec 18 17:30:02 CST 2017

Dear Ron,

« [RWL1:  I wasn’t in this, but I like Nikhil’s question - and not surprised it wasn’t answered. »

Actually, it was answered, and twice. See my previous email to Nikhil.

« [RWL2:  This makes no sense.  I must have missed something about Gates and $30.5 Million. »
I was using metaphors.

The NASA one is maybe not the best, let me use another one:

A teacher is teaching his pupils that 1 + 1 = 3.

He should be teaching 1 + 1 = 2, but he teaches them 1 + 1 = 3. They learn that and apply it at school, or in their homework, without any noticeable issue. All seems fine.

Then someone comes to see the director of the school, and says: «hey, the pupils are learning 1 + 1 = 3 instead of 2, please ask the teacher to stop. »

Then the director says: « prove me this is harmful, and then I’ll ask him to teach them 1 + 1 = 2 ».

This is basically what you and Nikhil are doing.

There is no need to study the impact of using something incorrect. Something that is proven wrong and incorrect shouldn’t be used.

You don’t need to assess the consequences of 1 + 1 = 3. You just use 1 + 1 = 2.

You don’t need to assess the consequences of writing a word with an incorrect spelling. You use the correct spelling.

This is why I was, using the example of the 30 million study, to represent a massive effort done to assess the harm done by using the WBT instead of a protocol that is reliable.

It is pointless doing this massive effort, doing this assessment.

«Dropping the WBT is one good example of something to avoid, when the vast majority of users are expressing no concern »

The vast majority of people eating pesticides with their food express no concern. That don’t mean they fully studied and understood how toxic the food is. They don’t know. That is not their role to verify the food is safe to eat.

There are professionals whom it is the role. They work full-time, and get big wages to do that.

« I will be reading the nice list of articles you provided. Thanks for the list - which I don’t recall being given before. »

It is strange, because I posted it many times on and outside the List, since January 2017. You were in copy when I send the emails about the advocacy. Then I sent this list of articles to you personally during our discussions on the List, in my email of the 20/01. Then I asked you the questions from the studies in my emails of the 26/01 and the 31/08.

I even sent you personnally the study papers, in pdf attachments, in a private email to you the 20/01.

« [RWL4:  Volkswagen got clobbered; they got away with nothing.

[RWL5:  I know of no example of NASA coming up with 3 instead af 2.  Yours? »
I was using fictional examples, metaphors, to show the fallacity of a reasoning.

« [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.? »

Maybe the WBT meets your standards, but it doesn’t meet the ones of most of us. The unreliability has been thoroughly documented, I was not talking about that.

I am talking about measuring the negative impact the use of an unreliable WBT has on stove development, dissemination, and on projects, companies, and ultimately the users.

It makes no sense.

That was my point. I don’t propose to measure that negative impact. A protocol is proven unreliable? Let’s not use it, and use a reliable protocol.

Best,

Xavier

De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Ronal W. Larson
Envoyé : samedi 16 décembre 2017 01:21
À : Xavier Brandao
Cc : Nikhil Desai; Discussion of biomass
Objet : Re: [Stoves] "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement"

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> https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif

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

---
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/20171219/5a5a9e57/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 7810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171219/5a5a9e57/attachment.gif>