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

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Sat Dec 23 05:45:33 CST 2017


Dear Kirk

Tell you what. ‎I will accept the rating on your stove if you can produce a spreadsheet with at least a triplicate set of tests entered in it, the same sheet as is filed on the GACC website: WBT4.2.3, conducted by a reputable person (not necessarily a a lab) who is experienced with conduction the test.

If you make that available either here on the list or to me privately so I can see it, I'll accept that ‎as 'evidence'.



The reason for my asking is so that I can speak about your product with some evidence in hand. To date it is lacking.

It is was done with a LEMS the file is very large. No problem. Upload if and share a link. Once it has been reviewed by me and, say, David Beritault (ex-GERE Lab in Phnom Penh) who is very experienced with the test, I will report to the group.

You don't have to care what I think, but I would appreciate this favour. The reason I ask is that the rating was produced on a test bed at LBNL that uses an unknown system and they are not willing to share the data so we can't see how the performance was assessed. In the world of donors, that is not acceptable. We have to know how a number was generated.

Your message below ‎indicate a reasonable faith in measurements. That is fine, but is not to be confused with calculations made from measurements.

It is akin to measuring indoor air quality and then making claims about health based upon them. The measurement can stand alone. Health impacts are quite a different thing that may or may not hold up underscrutiny.

What do you say?
Thanks
Crispin



Crispin,

>If I understand you, you want to know if I object to the WBT calling for the use of ‘sensors’ – is >that correct?

KH  No this is not correct.  What I asked is if the disagreement with the WBT includes the sensors and filters.  The answer is no.  The question was intended not to be specific to you but rather to address the general disagreement.

>All testing uses sensors. Why would someone object to using sensors? How else would >measurements be made?

KH  You are projecting into my words your own thoughts.  I never said anything about any objection to using sensors.  I only wanted to know if the sensors were considered part of the WBT and so part of the disagreement with the WBT.  The answer, as you have said, is no.

>The WBT has a fixed testing sequence of power and control. It does not represent cooking >anywhere in particular, though it says in the documentation that it is a proxy for cooking. “Rating >stoves” using a universal test sequence of operations is nearly pointless because it cannot predict >what will happen if someone uses it to cook. If the test doesn’t represent use, how can the result >tell us something that will inform policy? You wouldn’t buy a child safety seat that was tested >that way.

KH  None of this was in my question or my intention.

>Measurements can be made using any instruments you like. Xavier tried using one instrument >and didn’t like it. He is a customer and was dissatisfied. I am not.

KH  Again not in my question or intention.

You asked if he objected to making measurements is that correct?

KH  Again no.  Please do not project into my words your own agenda.

>If so I find the question silly, to be frank.

KH  Yes it is a silly question.  I am glad that I did not ask it.  Again projecting your agenda, this time apparently to misdirect the reader into believing that my actual question was somehow silly.  Why would you want to discredit my question with this misdirection?

>The instruments required to make measurements mentioned in the WBT are not part of the >testing protocol, they are part of the test apparatus used when conduction the procedures listed >in the protocol. Test protocols should list the measurement range and precision required to get a >valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does not contain any such description that >would produce results within the range required by the IWA. Writers of Standards include such a >list of needed equipment so as to provide the quality of result needed. This has nothing to do >with the equipment Xavier bought. It has to do with the test method and the claims which an be >made for its results. Such things are normally decided at the beginning during a conceptual >analysis of the purpose of the experiment and the quality of results needed.

KH  Again, projecting your agenda.  I once worked with a man to whom I would have to sometimes ask questions.  He would not answer the question but would talk all around it with a very long and intellectual sounding response.  I would have to ask him the same question three or four times before I would finally get a straight answer.  You are reminding me of him.

>Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the WBT document. The >method is defective on many counts – it contains approximately 75 systematic errors at present. >Some are major errors and can be (but might not be) misleading.

KH  Processing what recorded measurements?  From the sensors, filters, or the WBP (water boiling portion of the test).  I was told earlier the sensors were not included in the WBT, so it must be from the WBP.

>I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a pre-screening method before field >trials are attempted. That is nonsense. A stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain >meals might perform very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the field. Numerous >investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better in the field if they >perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ >as a rating.

>The second thing I object to is conceptual errors embedded in the test, and the arithmetic errors, >some of which are fundamental to the claims made for the results. Obviously the claims for the >‘specific fuel consumption’ are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed.

KH  How did we get here from my question?  Again projecting your agenda.  I never asked anything to which this is a response.

>I look forward to the day when you have your stove tested using a good test method that is well >grounded in science and engineering so we know what its performance actually is. It sounds >really good.

KH  I too would like to test it with one of these “good” tests.  When will they be available?  I have been waiting for four years now.

       I can tell you its performance right now because its performance is measured by the sensors and filters which you have said are not part of the disagreement with the WBT.  According to the sensors and filters, it is clean burning.  It is also adjustable from high to low.  It is simple to use and all who have used it for cooking love it.  I hope it will take its place with the Champion, the Prime and all the other excellent stoves out there in the world.
       The WBT measures the heat from the stove entering into the water in the pot.  This of course is only good for the one combination of pot, pot holder and skirt.  The final user may not use this combination, but rather a different pot, a wok, plancha, griddle or other.  Each of these needs its own test if its efficiency needs to be known.  That which the WBT was designed to measure is very ephemeral, agreeing with what you said above.  I wonder if these “better” tests are the same?  However, the purpose of the WBT, sensors and filters (or the “better” tests), as I see it, is to help in the design of the stove such that it burns the fuel with the best possible efficiency and cleanliness, and to maximize the amount of produced heat that is available to the cooking device, whatever it may be.  This will be useful in the field.  Comparisons with other stoves is, from my point of view, important but secondary.

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1dff5e035c294e83ed1108d549e3d55b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636496165245442790&sdata=JvAKwlycQQ%2B5vnaZncwG4Ow%2FfSQ7Hgnh0fArPBzZSMU%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Dear Kirk

If I understand you, you want to know if I object to the WBT calling for the use of ‘sensors’ – is that correct?

All testing uses sensors. Why would someone object to using sensors? How else would measurements be made?

The WBT has a fixed testing sequence of power and control. It does not represent cooking anywhere in particular, though it says in the documentation that it is a proxy for cooking. “Rating stoves” using a universal test sequence of operations is nearly pointless because it cannot predict what will happen if someone uses it to cook. If the test doesn’t represent use, how can the result tell us something that will inform policy? You wouldn’t buy a child safety seat that was tested that way.

Measurements can be made using any instruments you like. Xavier tried using one instrument and didn’t like it. He is a customer and was dissatisfied. I am not.

You asked if he objected to making measurements is that correct? If so I find the question silly, to be frank. We all use instruments to measure performance. The instruments required to make measurements mentioned in the WBT are not part of the testing protocol, they are part of the test apparatus used when conduction the procedures listed in the protocol. Test protocols should list the measurement range and precision required to get a valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does not contain any such description that would produce results within the range required by the IWA. Writers of Standards include such a list of needed equipment so as to provide the quality of result needed. This has nothing to do with the equipment Xavier bought. It has to do with the test method and the claims which an be made for its results. Such things are normally decided at the beginning during a conceptual analysis of the purpose of the experiment and the quality of results needed.

Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the WBT document. The method is defective on many counts – it contains approximately 75 systematic errors at present. Some are major errors and can be (but might not be) misleading.

I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a pre-screening method before field trials are attempted. That is nonsense. A stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain meals might perform very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the field. Numerous investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better in the field if they perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ as a rating.

The second thing I object to is conceptual errors embedded in the test, and the arithmetic errors, some of which are fundamental to the claims made for the results. Obviously the claims for the ‘specific fuel consumption’ are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed.

I look forward to the day when you have your stove tested using a good test method that is well grounded in science and engineering so we know what its performance actually is. It sounds really good.

Regards
Crispin
.


From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kirk H.
Sent: 20-Dec-17 02:18
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: 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.


Sent from Mail<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C95dc052b6f294156f64c08d5471e164a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493116906531727&sdata=FDOp6JcxcaiL9%2BB%2F5Vi7MO48xO9gNr1m4sho09OpP%2BU%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:39 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Dear Kirk

I made no mention at all of sensors or quality of equipment, which is not specified in the WBT. I think it is not helpful for you or Ron or anyone to impute disagreements where there are none. The WBT is a test protocol that includes a test method and  a set of calculations. What it your point is saying ‘it includes the CCT’ because it doesn’t exclude it? Seriously: what is your theory of change? Shooting messengers, even hosts of them, does not change the message.

Conceptually there is nothing wrote with heating or boiling water. If you want really accurate results, heat water, don’t boil it – a point repeatedly emphasized by Prof Lloyd. There is a paper called “From Water Boiling Test to Water Heating Test” which explores this, (From WBT to WHT, it is called).

If you want even more accurate assessments of your product, use formulas that are derived from first principles. That exercise has  been done very by the SeTAR Centre and is why the HPT was created – as a way of avoiding all the historical errors that have accumulated in the WBT.  I mentioned the LVH error in the list of woods at the back of the spreadsheet. That error was identified in 1987 by Sam Baldwin, someone highly praised in certain circles. Yet after 30 year (!) it has still not been corrected by Shell, Berkeley, Aprovecho, Tami Bond and ETHOS nor the EPA and GACC.

How long should we wait for something as simple as a an error in the LHV from HHV calculation to be implemented? Do you agree 30 years is a bit excessive (and still not corrected) is a bit excessive?

Why should anyone take seriously the system of informal management of its “main messenger” that cannot gets its technical house in order? I don’t. Neither does Xavier. Not Jiddu. Nor the Indian government nor the Chinese government nor many others.

Regards
Crispin




From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kirk H.
Sent: 19-Dec-17 12:25
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Thank you for your response.  My question was if the disagreement was with all parts of the test or just the water boiling part.  I guess your answer means that the disagreement is with all parts of the test including the CO sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate sensors and the weighing of the filters, as well as the water boiling portion.  When you say WBT, you mean all of this, not just the water boiling in the pot.  I also assume that the CCT is included in this, since your response did not exclude it.  But since I have nothing else available for my use I will continue as is.

I was using my stove to compare only because it and the fuel were constant between Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not to flaunt it as a clean stove.  Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C508e7c300ead46b2ea9808d546a9a7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492616834369342&sdata=NaGH3iFpwknHhuDte1RIdz%2FvvVkaWq9mKs1HvZl20jo%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM
To: Stoves<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Dear Kirk

No thinks your stove isn't 'clean and efficient'.‎ In truth we don't know what the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets for it are not available from Aprovecho (so you said when I asked) and LBNL not only doesn't share the spreadsheet behind the performance claims, they do their own evaluation using their own method (I wrote to them and asked specifically about your stove).

In the real world. This is simply unacceptable. We do not accept anyone's performance rating for which we do know know the method and calculations.

Similarly, the calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in accordance with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of any stove test to see).

The ratings provided by LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual performance on the WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I have no need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the cooking cycle or the calculations OD the WBT.

I do know that both those labs report using IWA metrics without any caution that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered is of questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer of the information is left with the impression that the numbers are meaningful which they may not be. To me that is at least, deceptive because both labs ae aware of the controversy and implications for the product ratings.

It is telling that students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in view of the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed.

The WBT should be eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable in the strictest sense of the word.

Regards
Crispin


Xavier,

I am surprised to read that you don’t know whether you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the water boiling portion of the test.  I did not specify Aprovecho’s equipment in my question.  I tested the same stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very clean stove.  Does the disagreement include Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water portion of the test?  What exactly do those who disagree with the WBT, disagree with, just the water boiling portion of the test or the overall test?  Is the Controlled Cooking portion of the test also included in this disagreement?

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

From: Xavier Brandao<mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]

Dear Kirk,

“Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water?“
I don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the measurements from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.
Other than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at Prakti, and I believe there are other cases where it happened.

Best,

Xavier

De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Kirk H.
Envoyé : samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55
A : Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China andcookstoves]

I have a question.

When I test a stove I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along with the pot of water.  Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water?  The water boiling portion of the overall test appears to attract your attention.  How much of the overall test do you disagree with?  What do you mean when you disagree with the WBT, are you including the sensors, computer graphs and filters?

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0>

Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171223/f0c40d87/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list