[Stoves] Differences in stove testing

Wed Feb 15 04:04:12 CST 2017

Dear Ranyee

I find it difficult to credit that "all the participants from about 20
countries went through the entire IWA draft line by line, word by word. " 

There is the counter view as given in Crispin's email today "The IWA event
was conducted in the following manner: "We have already agreed in Lima on
what should be in an international test method so all we have to do is
rubber-stamp it and we can go home." That was of course not acceptable as
the Lima event just gave the WBT 4.1.2 the nod without examining it closely
nor correcting the manifold errors. To get our (South Africa - 6 delegates)
agreement, it was critical to have any test method approved by external,
expert reviewers, which obviously had not been done before. This text was
added and we all voted for it. It would be quite incorrect for anyone to
suggest that we approved of the whole content because, for example, the IWA
has 9 performance metrics and the WBT only produced one of them, efficiency,
and calculated that incorrectly."

This tends to confirm Tami's view.

I think the beauty of the ISO process is that we are starting afresh from
first principles and leaving some of the historical baggage behind.  Can we
perhaps forget the IWA?

Prof Philip Lloyd

Energy Institute, CPUT

SARETEC, Sachs Circle

Bellville

Tel 021 959 4323

Cell 083 441 5247

PA Nadia 021 959 4330

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Ranyee Chiang
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:37 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove testing

Dear all,

The IWA meeting in the Hague was now 5 year ago, so I can see that it would
be difficult to remember exactly what happened.  The issue of who provided
input into the IWA is an important one, so I think it is important to
correct misrepresentations of what happened.  During the IWA meeting, all
the participants from about 20 countries went through the entire IWA draft
line by line, word by word.  There were opportunities for people to exclude
the Tiers at that time, but that was not raised by any of the participants.
The participants also developed resolutions which were reviewed and approved
by all the participants at the end of the meeting.  The draft of the IWA was
developed by mostly experts from the US.  There were also 3 webinars prior
to the IWA meeting in the Hague to collect and integrate input from a wide
group of stakeholders.  And then of course, during the IWA, participants
were welcome to and did comment on every single part of the IWA.

It is still true that the current ISO process has more thorough than the
IWA, but the process was not as Tami described in her e-mail.

Best regards,

Ranyee

From: "Bond, Tami C" <yark at illinois.edu>
Date: February 13, 2017 at 11:41:27 PM EST
To: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
Cc: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove testing
Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>

Hi Ron, 

I so much appreciate your feedback!

To be clear, I am not looking for other metrics- some have already been
proposed in WG1- although your discussions will likely be fruitful and
possibly taken up later. I am ONLY, at this time, looking for precedents for
defining an energy efficiency or thermal efficiency in the way that has been
previously described, with a subtraction in the denominator. Other questions
may come later; I believe it's wise to take one thing at a time- focus
helps. 

I leave the question of Tiers for further discussion on this list. It is not
under discussion (within WG1) at this time, although perhaps it will come
later.

Since you were not in The Hague to witness the process of the IWA, I suggest
that perhaps you might not want to lean on it as support. No opportunities
were offered to modify the IWA document, but only to provide resolutions
preceding it. Therefore, even if the assembled company had wished to exclude
the Tiers, they would have been unable to do so. The current ISO process has
a more thorough discussion, and includes more international stakeholders,
than did the IWA, which was largely written only by members of the United
States delegation. I encourage you to wait for coming documents before
claiming that any particular position is supported by the entire
international community.

Regards,

Tami

 <http://www.cleancookstoves.org/> Global_Aliance_Clean_Cookstoves_blue_v23

Ranyee Chiang, Ph.D.

Director of Standards, Technology and Fuels

 <tel:1-202-448-4677> 1.202.448.4677    <skype:ranyee.chiang?add> Skype:
ranyee.chiang

 <mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org> rchiang at cleancookstoves.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/31f0f6c3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2895 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/31f0f6c3/attachment.jpg>