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

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Mon Feb 20 10:44:16 CST 2017


Anyone,

Can the OTHER tests be conducted using the LEMS equipment?

Where can the tests from India, China or SeTAR be conducted other than 
in India, China or South Africa?   And do any of those places have the 
WBT testing also available?

Has anyone done tests of the same stove and same fuel with more than one 
of the test methods?   If yes, can we see some results?

Have Jim Jetter or others experimented / checked out the other methods?

Unfortunate if this has not been done.    Or has been done but not 
shared for all to see.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 2/14/2017 8:10 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott 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] *On 
> Behalf Of *Xavier Brandao
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 AM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; 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
>
> 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/20170220/93e13e42/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list