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

[Ronal W. Larson]

Xavier and list:  cc Drs. Chiang and Bond

	 It’s difficult to know which of a dozen recent messages to respond to.  I pick yours mainly because you have cc’d the two persons I see as most key to the topic of continuing the WBT (which I strongly favor - and will use this response to again say why).  I will also try to get to other messages fairly soon.


> On Feb 15, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> I believe we all have very nice resumes, we all have been doing lots of stuff.
> 
	[RWL1:  Resumes also are used to help others understand the background of the discussants.  My point is that there are plenty who don’t have the backgrounds of the two I cited.  Your term “all” seems a stretch on this WBT topic.
> 	
> 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.
> 
	[RWL2:  Please explain further.  I see NO other way to inform on performance.  There is an ongoing (even today) WG3 discussion on field testing - which are planning to also report data on heat transfer efficiency and char-made.  Should those “performance” tests also not be reported?

	 Are you fundamentally opposed to any test placing stoves into 9 [more or less] tiers?  Or just this particular existing protocol #1 on WBT efficiencies?  And where are you on including charcoal output in the reporting of 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.	
> 
	[RWL3   Re  - a)  affordability (the second item in Dr. Chiang’s list)?  Do you really wish this in an ISO test?  Are there any ISO test doing this now?  Who else is supportive of adding cost?  I am not close to discussions that might have taken place on costing - but I doubt there is much support for adding this variable at any point in any ISO document.
	This is not to say that affordability knowledge will not come out of lab testing.  In fact it is the only way to make comparisons and claims on meal, daily, weekly, monthly and annual costs.  But costs should not be an output from a lab test.  Sales people know that world well - and it will vary all over the place.

	b) context?   This is the purview of WG3 - field testing.  (Repeat:  this was under discussion today by more than a dozen (I only listened).  That field testing will surely be compared to any WG2 test that employs a WBT.  I doubt there is anywhere in the world that doesn’t heat/boil water (and generate a huge array of pollutants - that field testing will never be equipped to do well).

	c)  shipping?   I doubt you can find any ISO test procedure that includes shipping as an issue.  Many on this list ask for local manufacture only


	Don’t you agree that all the above are best left to the companies and individuals selling stoves, not those involved in lab (or field) testing?

	And you left out the other two on Dr. Chiang’s list of four reasons:
> 
> 3)  usability, and 
> 4)  access to a broad range of technology 
> 	and fuel opportunities.”

	I contend, mostly from several stays at Aprovecho, that lab testing using the WBT, can give great insight on these as well.

> 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?
> 
	[RWL4:  Clearly the present protocol is limited to boiling/heating water.  Are you urging that every lab adds roti testing?  Don’t you think that stoves used in part for roti-making sometimes also heat water?  I just checked on roti making (http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Roti <http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Roti>) and now think a stove that boils water in a lab generates a lot of data that can be transferred to making a roti.  If you had used an example of pizza baking-ovens I would have had a different response.

	Should all the many labs around the world also have to do this for Swedish pancakes and for Mexican tortillas?   I suggest you are trying too hard to discredit the WBT, which is trying only to improve stoves globally with a test that we can afford.

	I’ll also wager there are a lot of ADALY’s lost in roti making - and is one of the reasons we are in this dialog on the WBT.
> "I ask all those seeking to kill the WBT"
> 
	[RWL5:  I need to pick up at this point in a day or two.  I take your next comments to be a little positive - but I think you will agree there are a few in this dialog who would completely throw five years of hard work by many out the window., with no intention to ever return.    I still claim that “killing” is unfounded.  That is what I now have to go work on, as well as answering a few more.

	And I have to research the other cites you have given.

Ron
	<snip the rest for now -  to save bandwidth>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/31fef3ed/attachment.html>