[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

[Frank Shields]

Dear Fabio and Stovers 

I have criticized the WBT in the past but after looking at the new directions that is being taken the WBT looks better and better. It does need some changes. 

The problems with the WBT:

1) The fuel needs be characterized by its chemical and physical properties - NOT as identification as to Name of the type of wood. 

2) We need to remove any calculations regarding to moisture and attempt to normalize the energy value back to dry weight basis. Before that can be done there need be proof that it is a linear fit - very unlikely with this type of system. We can only report ‘with a moisture of 10% this happens” or "with a moisture of 20% this happens”. 
2b) There are many energy waste like sides of the combustion chamber, gaps too wide, pot bottom placed to high or low etc. These are considered the same as moisture - something to be optimized and understood. 

3)  It needs be understood that the WBT is only an outline for tests that need be done. That is the Task here is boiling water. Using this outline we need to establish different Tasks. Could be; Char making, cooking beans, grill cooking, heating a house, creating light - all types of Tasks. For all we need the same layout.

Regards

Frank








> "Dear Xavier,
> 
> Thank you very much for having cited our paper in the discussion. Please, consider this recommendation for the next citations: we do not actually critic the WBT per se, but the way through which the practitioners and the literature perform the WBT and report the results. Indeed, we are perfectly aware that the WBT has many drawbacks and unresolved issues, but we are still trying to support this in a scientific way.
> 
> With our article “Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves" we demonstrated a different problem: so far, the literature reports mainly data coming from an average of few replicates that can lead to misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’ performance if the uncertainties are not considered. The final goal of the article is therefore making people aware of the possible errors and misinterpretations when they do not perform accurate statistical data processing.
> 
> Therefore, the sentence that you have highlighted in the forwarded email should not be interpreted as “the WBT itself has epistemic uncertainties that may lead to incorrect ICS’s performance evaluation”, because it is not actually the result of the work. Rather, the main outcome and result is this:  
> 
> “IF you do not consider the WBTs uncertainties (viz. the uncertainties related to lab replicates performed with the WBT) when you report and analyse data à THEN you might misinterpret the real ICSs’ performance”. So, we are not criticizing the “WBT uncertainties” per se, because it is normal to have uncertainties when you perform a lab measures (they are too many in the WBT, true, and they must be urgently limited! but it is not the point of the         article).
> 
> This conclusion can be applied to all the protocols that have intrinsic uncertainties. The reason why we have considered only the WBT-based tests is because it is the most adopted protocol in the literature and there are many data available. 
> 
> I hope it could be clearer now. I would be grateful if you could forward this message also to Ron and the bioenergy list.
> 
> Thanks again for the passion and the effort you put for the testing community.  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Fabio"
> 
> It is really great to have some insight from them. As I was replying to Fabio, I don't know if it is at all possible to "fix" the WBT. And doing this fixing, if it is at all possible, will take a lot of time. Researchers and testers are very busy with other things, and funders/the GACC/project implementers want to act now.
> 
> Let's be a bit realistic for one second. If nothing is done, testers will keep using the WBT, and project implementers being project implementers, they WILL poorly interpret the results. We all know how it works in international development projects. Some projects are planned very well and run very smoothly, but let's admit that more often than not, nothing really goes according to the plan.
> Testers and project leaders will hastily test the stoves with a limited number of iterations because they are already late on the project planning, or they have limited human resources or funds, not the right equipment, or the testing consultant is in the country for a short amount of time. They will think it is good enough. They will take hasty decisions, and start projects based on very thin evidence. This is unfortunately how it happens all the time. It's like saying the the project implementers: here is a car but the brakes are not working well, don't drive too fast with it. Misinterpretations and misuse of the results will be done, because the WBT is so easy to misuse. A very solid protocol is what we need. We need a great tool, a fool-proof tool, a tool we can rely on.
> 
> Another point is that more than a few people have been trying to fix the WBT for long time, maybe 10 years or more. Maybe since it was invented, in 1987? Can it be fixed at all? Even "improved", even with a large number of test iterations, can the WBT give any satisfactory results leading to good decisions?
> 
> But more importantly, even with statistical data processing, 3 big issues remain with the WBT. Can they be solved at all? Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi admit these 3 issues still remain.
> They are not criticizing the WBT per se, in their paper. But I, and many others, are. Based on their findings, we are criticizing the WBT, because the WBT allows for easy misinterpretation, the WBT allows large mistakes to be made. Because in international development projects, and especially in stove projects, it is so easy to make bad decisions. 
> Often, researchers and scientists don't take position, because it is, they think, not their job. Then others in the stove sector have the responsibility to take a position, and make a choice. I believe their researches allow us to take that position, and to ask for the promotion of the WBT to be stopped.
> 
> The wisest step, in my opinion, remains to stop using this protocol, until it is fixed or we definitely move to a better one.
> 
> I remind you that you can support the initiative here: xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
> And see other protocols, the HTP and CSI, here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing>
> 
> Looking forward to your comments.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com



franke at cruzio.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170213/d70769b3/attachment.html>