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

Xavier Brandao xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 13:09:16 CST 2017


Dear Ron,

I believe we all have very nice resumes, we all have been doing lots of 
stuff.

As much as I like resumes, what interest me more are the facts and 
arguments presented in a discussion, regardless of what is on the 
person's business card.

/"Someone asked today what the water boiling test was supposed to do.  I 
like this 4-part list as a knowledgeable answer"/

It seems the WBT is not able to inform us on performance. It is 
certainly not telling us anything on affordability. It is not 
contextual, and not telling me anything of what's gonna happen when I 
ship the stove model from Oregon, U.S., to Tamil Nadu, India. And yes, 
possibly the WBT works for a broad range of technologies and fuel 
opportunities. Like any protocol. But not for a broad range of cooking 
practices. What does a WBT tell me about cooking rotis?

/"////I ask all those seeking to kill the WBT" /

I am not asking to kill the WBT, please re-read my call for support. I 
am asking to put it aside, to "lock it", for now. To admit it has flaws, 
to stop using and promoting it. Then, we can fix it if it is fixable at 
all. It may take 10 years, it may never happen.

/"If we don’t do what is now more than 4 years in the making - what is 
going to replace it?"/

You might have missed what I posted earlier, you got all the updated 
documents of the HTP protocol and CSI method here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing>

If you have any question about them, please do ask on this List. Or 
write to Crispin or I (I will be relaying the questions actually).

What it is you do with the WBT that you cannot do with HTP or CSI? As I 
said, anyone is welcome to contribute with remarks or other protocols. 
Crispin has also mentioned the Chinese, Indian, AWBT protocols.

I actually wanted for some time to reply to your previous post, after 
the ETHOS conference.

I have hard time believing that after reading the 10 studies which links 
I recently posted, you found absolutely nothing wrong with the WBT, 
nothing worrysome, nothing worth investigation.

You didn't answer my 3 questions to you, from my email of the 26/01:

  * do you contest the role of thermodynamic uncertainties (viz.
    variable steam production and boiling point determination) on
    results repeatability? Can you ensure there are no uncertainties? Of
    if there are, can you ensure they have no effect on results
    repeatability? How?
  * do you have an answer to the questions about the rationale of some
    calculations raised by Zhang et al.?
  * do you support the statistical approach recommended by this
    standardised laboratory-based test to evaluate, communicate and
    compare performances and emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the
    arithmetic average of three replicate tests? How do you guarantee
    this statistical approach ensure good comparison of stove performances?

You also said that like you, many (most?) people at the ETHOS supported 
the WBT. Could you please give names? Who particularly said the WBT was 
a good protocol? Why do they think it is a good protocol? Could you 
please ask them to react on this List?

These past years, there has been on this List nothing but a deafening 
silence from the WBT supporters.

Best,

Xavier


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/a86de75a/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list