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

Tue Feb 14 15:19:39 CST 2017

Hello Tom,

No I am not. And I don't think there is anyone from India, 
unfortunately. I was told so in October 2016. I may not be very 
representative of the Indian stakeholders, now I live in France.
I have considered joining, I still think about it, but I have limited 
time and also my contribution will be very limited, I cannot discuss the 
topics in-depth.

I would be a spectator, or listener, I would be then updated on the 
progress, and I could only relay the discussions from the WG to the List 
and other stovers, and relay the discussions from the List to the WG. As 
well as the questions from the studies I mentioned, making sure the WG 
do take them into account.

But even if I was involved in the WG, even if there was lot of progress 
there on the WBT (in fact, I was told about this new progress already at 
the end of 2016), I still would like the WBT questions to be taken into 
account by the GACC independantly, hence the initiative and the post on 
this List and to my list of contacts.

I still want, regardless of the outcomes of the ISO TC 285, the GACC to 
acknowledge the problem, remove the WBT from the top of the list of 
protocols on its website, and stop promoting it for programmatic 
purposes like it recently did to the UNHCR. So my point: I know the WG 
work on that, but I don't think we should wait for their (uncertain) 
conclusions.

I think there's been some good contributions and progress on the 
discussions on this List, plus we have now all in one place the latest 
files for the main alternative protocol and method, the HTP and CSI (to 
be completed with other protocols and contributions from this List), we 
have a list of the WBT issues, we have a list of the studies about the 
WBT. Maybe the WG knew about all this way before, but it seems to be a 
bit new here. Even Ron was thinking that Crispin was isolated, didn't 
realize so many complained about the WBT.
Anyways I'll try not to be "spamming" too much, sorry if I did!

Best,

Xavier

On 2/14/17 21:20, Tom Miles wrote:
>
> Xavier,
>
> I thought maybe you were a member of WG4. Who is representing India? I 
> understand there are about 25 participants but less than that are 
> active. I think I heard that WG1 had about 93 participants with some 
> fraction being active.
>
> I don’t have a reference for the German study but someone on the list 
> probably does.
>
> The SPAM tag was probably picked up by someone’s computer and has just 
> been carried along with the discussion. I don’t know who originally 
> named the thread but it would show up in the archives as the first 
> message.
>
> Tom
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Xavier Brandao
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:53 AM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; franke at cruzio.com
> *Subject:* SPAM: Re: [Stoves] SPAM: Re: Advocacy action: ask the GACC 
> to stop promoting the WBT
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> I am happy to see the question is being discussed in the WG, and was 
> discussed at ETHOS.
> I am unsure if what you are mentioning has been written on this list, 
> so thanks for that new information, it is helpful.
>
> "A recent study in Germany was cited where WBT tests were different 
> from different labs."
> It's great to hear. Is it possible to have the link to this study?
>
> "Who on this list are participants in the working groups?"
> I do not understand your question. Are you asking me if I know if 
> among the 900+ participants to the List, there are participants in the 
> working groups, or are you telling me that on this List, there are no 
> participants to the working group?
> My assumption was that there was a lot of the WG participants on this 
> List. I have been told that my messages on the List were read. I am 
> sure they reach the WG. I know my messages are read by the GACC people.
> Now, the people working in the WG are not necessarily the only people 
> I wanted to discuss to. I wanted to discuss with the List members, 
> because I believe a lot are working with or have worked with the WBT, 
> and the WBT as been discussed here a lot in the past, and that now we 
> have new elements and make progress in the discussion.
> Since there are supporters of the WBT who expressed on this List, I 
> thought it made sense to ask for their point of view here.
>
> Your message subject was: "SPAM: Re: Advocacy action: ask the GACC to 
> stop promoting the WBT". Was it you who named it like this or was it 
> your webmail which sees my messages as spam?
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
>
> On 2/14/17 20:34, Tom Miles wrote:
>
>     Xavier,
>
>     The donors and participants in GACC who I talked with at ETHOS
>     regard the WBT as a useful tool for stove development but question
>     its use for comparing stove performance in use. A recent study in
>     Germany was cited where WBT tests were different from different
>     labs. There was also a lot of discussion from the GACC working
>     group leaders and participants about the need for contextual
>     evaluation. A detailed approach to contextual evaluation was
>     presented by GIZ which refleted much of what has been discussed
>     here. It was also stated in the WG4 summary that options and
>     exceptions are being delineated. What’s missing here is a clear
>     understanding of what is actually being discussed about WBT,
>     where, and for what purpose. The fears and concerns of negative
>     impacts from  WBT tests were clearly stated by various speaker. It
>     was also discussed that Tiers may not necessarily be relevant to
>     the needs of a community. You might select a lower tier stove to
>     meet those needs.  Who on this list are participants in the
>     working groups?
>
>     Tom
>
>     *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
>     Behalf Of *Xavier Brandao
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 AM
>     *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>     <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>     <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; franke at cruzio.com
>     <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>     *Subject:* SPAM: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to
>     stop promoting the WBT
>
>     Dear Frank,
>
>
>     /"the WBT is only an outline for tests that need be done"/
>
>     Why do an outline when we can do (good) tests instead?
>
>     Additionally to these 3 problems you mentioned, you have to add
>     the other ones I quoted previously, some mentioned in Fabio and
>     Francesco's study. See below.
>     It's not looking too good for me. Sometimes getting something new
>     is much faster and surer than fixing something broken.
>     I know that a lot of effort from many people went into "fixing"
>     the WBT. But maybe it is beyond fixing. Maybe these are sunk costs.
>
>       * the WBT is not contextual, as Crispin highlighted many times
>       * several WBT metrics are invalid, as Crispin highlighted many times
>       * there are big thermodynamic uncertainties (viz. variable steam
>         production and boiling point determination)
>       * there are questions about the rationale of some calculations,
>         questions raised by Zhang et al.
>
>     We have been talking about the WBT for a few weeks already (not
>     counting the years prior to that), and all these questions haven't
>     been answered.
>
>     All, for more details about these questions, please find the links
>     to all the studies I mentioned:
>
>       * Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental
>         analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves
>         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves
>
>       * Key differences of performance test protocols for household
>         biomass cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE
>         2014:1–11.
>         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).
>
>       * Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove
>         interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health
>         Project. Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70.
>         http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
>       * The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol
>         http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd
>
>       * Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance
>         and development of an improved testing protocol
>         https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf
>
>       * How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove
>         performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate.
>         http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-et-al._final.pdf
>
>       * Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols
>         for thermal performance of biomass stoves
>         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves
>
>       * Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation
>         of expanded uncertainty for WBT
>         http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf
>
>       * Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols
>         http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
>       * Towards a standard for clean solid-fuelled cookstoves
>
>     https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_clean_solid-fuelled_cookstoves
>
>     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
>     <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
>
>     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>
>     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170214/4bdffe96/attachment.html>