[Stoves] WBT controversy

Fri Dec 22 11:37:24 CST 2017

Crispin:

Is there any evidence that a particular form of the American WBT has done
any good in the last six years other than to publish academic results? Any
contribution to stove quality and performance in use?

If I understand you correctly, the IWA is irrelevant because it does not
have a "baseline" for its performance metrics (even as I don't care for the
metrics in isolation from the context). This is what it essentially amounts
to when it says that the "standard test" needs to be conducted to compare
with.

This is utterly illogical. It is tantamount to telling a power generator
that his plant must be tested on a fuel of specific quality - say,
high-sulfur Illinois coal with x HGI, y vol matter, and z moisture.

Let me remind you - this is at its core the same questions I have been
asking: what is a stove, what is the service standard, what is the
objective? It is simply illogical to have any metrics or test protocols
without first answering these questions, howsoever approximate those
answers may be.

This is why I call this an exercise - to flex and stretch muscles to run up
blind alleys. Been going on for decades, and there is no evidence that
stove designers - real ones, who have been making stoves for centuries, not
the academics - give a hoot about the WBT or these metrics except to game
the rules when they sell their stoves to "donors". (Or MIT-Harvard e-cons.)

This gets worse, when you say "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 .."

>From a design engineer's perspective, is this permissible? From what I
remember of rules of product standards, you cannot just test with equipment
of unspecified accuracy and precision. If a manufacturer warrants product
performance, he designs to a certain specification that can be tested up to
certain standard of accuracy (reliability) and precision (number of decimal
points).

It makes no sense whatsoever otherwise.

So, forget that EPA has no competence nor jurisdiction in cookstove design
and operation anywhere in the world, forget also that the variability in
fuel and operating conditions gives rise to a great deal of uncertainty in
any test (lab or field), forget that there is no testing of a manufactured
stove across fuel types and quality save one (one I heard on a recent
webinar) the rest being on a standard fuel across a fictional 3-Stone Fire,
forget that the whole theology of deforestation, climate, health and rapes
is based not on actual stoves in actual environments with actual fuel
emission factors and actual concentrations -- all of which can be forgiven
for academic monkeying around for the sake of publishing papers -

.. the WBT is, simply, no guide to stove design. And cannot be used for
specifications except to game the system (whatever that might exist; ISO is
not a "system", just a meeting place of self-proclaimed stakeholders).

It is quite a leap to get out of the academic sandbox of combustion and
resources and enter a marathon in the real world.

Lemmings can do what they are designed - by God or Nature - to do. Why
should the rest of us join the lemmings?

Pardon my bluntness. There is not an iota of evidence that WBT has
contributed - in the absence of any standards, which is mostly the case
still - in achieving any of the alleged objective or goal touted around by
GACC with SDG rationales.

All we have is the stoves catalog prepared by BAMG and then whatever is on
GACC website. Some numbers.

If those numbers are holy - for claims of health damage or climate
protection - I think it's time to shut down the church.

Heretic, aren't I?

Merry Christmas, peace on earth and goodwill to all. (Yes, a Catholic
priest taught me to call out conceit and deceit.)

Nikhil

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> 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
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171222/7142fb77/attachment.html>