[Stoves] WBT controversy

Fri Dec 22 01:35:21 CST 2017

Dear Kirk

You could analyse the test from a conceptual viewpoint first to assess whether or not it answers the questions you are asking.

In the current document there is a wide range of suggested activities. The problem with the text as a whole is that although it encourages testers to do things that are 'contextual' it claims that to make a comparison with other stove tests in other places or labs, the 'standard test' should be conducted. As the standard test (fixed fuel, standard pot, fixed test sequence, set water mass) does not have contextual relevance, the result is not relevant.

The fact that there are numerous errors both conceptually and mathematically in the experiment one conducts to perform the WBT assessment leaves little room for doubt that no WBT result should be trusted for assessment, comparison, regulation or to advise policy.

All test protocols will contain some instruction about equipment. In a typical one there is a specified accuracy and precision of each measurement. The range of the instrument can then be selected which meets that requirement. Such a specification is not made in abstract, it is based on a plan to have, at the end, an answer with an acceptable uncertainty. That part is missing from the WBT because it is not a well-written protocol. It doesn't have a target 'performance' as a test method.

Surprisingly, and unusually for this sector, the IWA does have such a performance requirement of the testing system. It is very difficult to meet. To date I think no one's system has met the target in all respects. The system mentioned by Norbert, the Condar plus gas analysers at BNL on Long Island, does meet the requirements, but is not an EPA total capture dilution system and thus is not permitted under the forthcoming ISO lab test method. Norbert showed that the Condar system has 1/5th of the uncertainty of the top of the line EPA system (Method 5G) and also meets the IWA (not that he was looking for it).

The WBT has many failings we can learn from through discussion and analysis. Accuracy, repeatability, math, stats and relevance are just some of its shortcomings. Time to retire it.

Regards
Crispin

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson
Sent: 22-Dec-17 06:36
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Kirk H. <gkharris316 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WBT controversy

Kirk and list:

               I disagree with you.  I ask the opponents to the WBT (any part) to give us an alternative.  To me, what I see coming through the TC-285 process has wide approval - and should be celebrated for that.

Ron

On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:18 AM, Kirk H. <gkharris316 at comcast.net<mailto:gkharris316 at comcast.net>> wrote:

Perhaps my confusion and need for my previous question could have been averted if instead of calling the test the Water Boiling Test (WBT), which seems to refer to the whole test, it be called the Water Boiling Portion of the Test (WBP or WBPT).  Then it would be very clear that not all of the overall test (including sensors and filters) is in dispute.  Only the WBP needs to be addressed.  This makes the problem much less daunting, and I could be much more sympathetic toward a change.  When it sounded like the disagreement was with everything from beginning to end, I was not sympathetic.

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd18fa75caf854705413908d548d44fd3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636494999058662588&sdata=cfnTzNdgUIgDmrixH5KEH8jH1LI63knMSLw%2FWlhk41Q%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd18fa75caf854705413908d548d44fd3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636494999058662588&sdata=3uaR9uyGS87KLzMDSleTQ5%2BU0IoK7NgpAUDSp%2Feqg3g%3D&reserved=0>

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd18fa75caf854705413908d548d44fd3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636494999058662588&sdata=ZqOUqNsrWuuFjkW0qOD%2FzzlRI6QEgsFQC%2Faj%2Fg3pM00%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171222/c807693d/attachment.html>