[Stoves] : Re: Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Mon Feb 20 13:07:59 CST 2017
Crispin,
Are any comparative results available, showing what each of the
different test methods/calculation produces?
Please provide some sets of numbers.
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 2/20/2017 11:43 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
> The same stove was tested with the same fuel and several different
> test methods at the CAU stove conference a couple of years ago.
>
> The equipment can be used to provide inputs into other calculations,
> ie not using the WBT calculations.
>
> Remember the WBT includes a method of calculation performance metrics,
> and a burn sequence. These are independently changeable. You could
> cook a meal instead of boiling water.
>
> The equipment is separate again. The spreadsheet for the WBT is not
> directly compatible with the LEMS, there has to be a set of
> intermediate calculations. That is done with a separate spreadsheet
> which used to be called version 7 but has been renamed v4.2.3 to make
> it appear that it goes together with the WBT.
>
> The calculations are not identical, but are very similar. An important
> difference is that the 'number of litres boiled' according to the LEMS
> version is the same as the volume in the pot whereas the WBT sheet
> reports the final volume. Thus the fuel consumption 'per litre boiled'
> is lower of the LEMS sheet is used.
>
> The bigger issue with the equipment is the accuracy and calibrations.
> The bigger issue with the burn sequence is its decontextual nature.
> The bigger issue with the calculations is the invalid efficiency
> claims and low power metrics which are still being used to allocate
> funding.
>
> Adding a better gas analyser to the LEMS and a scale under the stove
> one can generate all sorts of interesting assessments. The first thing
> to do is to abandon the WBT as a test method.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bdc10451/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list