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

Tue Feb 14 22:40:10 CST 2017

Dear Crispin and All,

The WBT used exact sized, dry and consistent wood type for the testing to establish the best gaps, insulation, height and etc. measuring performance of energy entering a pot of water. All controls in place for conducting such tests. As for the thermodynamic calculations they were all the same being established from books and all giving 6% hydrogen - so basically just a formality. Just for fun calculations. That does not work in the real world where biomass is in all kinds of decay and types. All different shapes and varying moistures, ash, volatiles etc.. 

Energy efficiency values mean little unless there is a linear response and that unlikely with these little combustion chambers. All we care about is being able to predict, based on a biomass analysis, as to how a stove will work using local fuel.  The biomass analysis needs be determined and what is meant as to ‘how well a stove works' need be determined. 

The attempt to put (force) thermodynamics into all this has been unsuccessful and resulted in many wasted years. And continues to do so. 

Regards

Frank

> On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Tom and All
> 
> I challenge the idea that the WBT (not all water boiling, just that protocol) is valuable as a design and development tool. 
> 
> The simple fact is that the WBT gives uncertain and incorrect measures of performance. Using the Indian, Chinese or SeTAR efficiency test (v1.57) will provide a much more accurate and consistent evaluation. 
> 
> It is unfortunate that the WBT still clings to life as a 'development tool'. The high power metrics are misleading and the low power metrics are scientifically worthless. A much-repeated ‎and incorrect claim is that 'if a stoves performs well on the WBT it will generally performs well in the field'. Another shibboleth is that if a stove doesn't perform well 'in the lab' (hinting that it will be a WBT) it 'will generally not perform well in the field'. 
> 
> What one would normally call 'proof' of these twin claims is missing. I take it as an admission that the WBT is not useful for performance rating. I already know it is not useful for product development. It is not useful for sorting out what might do well in real life from that which will not. 
> 
> There are obviously significant implications for this. The obvious first step is that it should not be a requirement that any stove perform 'well' on its metrics in order to be considered for a subsidised improved stove programme. 
> 
> Regards 
> Crispin 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 <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 <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/ <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/ <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/20170214/925bbc98/attachment.html>