[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Tue Dec 19 16:03:42 CST 2017

Dear Kirk,

Thanks for your questions, and for being open to discussion.

To be short, what the studies question is not the equipment involved, it is the testing protocol itself. The testing protocol is flawed on several aspects, statistical approach, metrics, calculations, repeatability. It is not reliable.

Whether it is used with a reliable measuring equipment, or an unreliable one, will not allow for its results to be reliable.

The WBT in itself is fundamentally flawed.

It means that yes, CO, CO2, and PM and PM 2.5 results are very much in dispute.

Does this answer your question ?

“When will these other better tests be available for me to use?”

That’s what I said in my previous messages: they are available for you to use, they have been available for many years.

Notable alternative testing protocols: CSI method (the latest one), Heterogeneous Testing Protocol (HTP), SeTAR Energy Efficiency Test (current version is v1.57) 

These protocols can be downloaded from the following Google Drive folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing 

Would you consider testing your stove using one of these protocols?

I have another question: where can we find the WBT results for the Wonderwerk stove? The ones that were done at the Aprovecho Research Center, and the ones that were done at Berkeley?

Please find below this email the list of studies.

Please, do take the time to read them. It is very important for you, as a stove developer who was advised to use the WBT, to understand what are the implications.

Thanks again!

Xavier

Studies on the WBT and its issues 

 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 

 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 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_ 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 =pdf 

 Pendelton Taylor R., The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, 2009 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 

 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 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 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/ 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 

 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 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_ errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves 

De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Kirk H.
Envoyé : mardi 19 décembre 2017 21:18
À : Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Crispin, 

The fact that you did not mention sensors is the problem because sensors were in my question.  

Since your response did not answer my question but rather pushed your anti-WBT agenda, I had no choice but to guess.  I did not impute disagreements, I could only guess that your disagreement extended to the sensors and filters.  If they did not then you should have made that clear in your response instead of pushing your agenda.  I quite clearly asked if the CCT is included in the disagreement.  No answer in your response.  I could only make guesses, because your response was so far off from answering my question.  All I wanted was for my question to be answered. 

Aside from this, thank you for answering my question in this last contribution.  No you do not include the sensors and filters in the disagreement.  I can now feel comfortable that the CO, CO2, and particulate results are not in dispute.

When will these other better tests be available for me to use?

Kirk H.

---
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/20171219/2519091e/attachment.html>