[Stoves] Malawi Philips stove intervention study and Nikhil's 28 sins of insolence about GACC/WHO (Re: Ron Larson)
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Wed Jan 18 22:46:11 CST 2017
List: cc Crispin:
I’ll read all of the following when I have a proper citation. Please fill in the blanks:
Zhang, 2014, cite?
ZHANG, 2016, cite?
Fabio Riva, Date?, cite
IWA, required review, date?, cite
Crispin and Annegam, DATE?, cite?
Kirk Smith, date, cite (other than a 2008 meeting statement). My guess is that the “denominator equation” is fully in WBT3.0; true?
two new papers, date, cite?
2. Below, you use the term: “clear sense of hostility”. I hope others will further explore this concept; I have not made that charge - you did. Being retired I can take on this argument (mainly because the hostility came from people I consider friends and they deserve my help) - so I totally understand why you have used this term. But let me repeat that I had several questions below that you have again ignored:
a) My item 2a: “I ask again to give one cite supporting your view. I will reconsider my position when you give me that cite. You are the one who I hear is alone, not me.” I repeat you have given names - some from 2008 - no cites.
Let me try again. Do you believe the denominator in question gives the energy available to go into the cook pot? That the e2 term was not available to heat the water in the pot? Why in the world you would not want to subtract that term when you are already subtracting energy in the untouched (un-charred) fuels you started with. Or do you propose that unused fuel that was provided in the test procedures should also not have been subtracted out? What is the difference in your mind between unused fuel and produced char in giving a best possible statement (through a subtraction) about a particular stove? Do you agree that the only reason e2 stands out as a subtraction is because it has a different energy density than the incoming wood or other fuel?
b. I asked - meaning to restrict myself to the “denominator equation”: Do you now support the legitimacy of testing using 4.2.3 for a charcoal-making stove, or not? Or do you reject 4.2.3 in all circumstances? I have made no claims about all of 4.2.3 - only about this single equation. I am attempting here to determine whether you think charcoal making stoves should never be tested along with non-charcoal-making stoves? (Which I think you have said before on this list - but I don’t care to go look for that cite; apologies for that reticence, given the hour). I don’t care about the cite - I am looking for your present view on how to test and report on char-making stoves.
Ron
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
> In preparation for the ETHOS meeting I suggest you read the documents I have previously cited including Zhang, Y 2014 which is a detailed examination of a small number of the most urgent errors in the WBT. The more recent paper by Y Zhang 2016 covers a larger range of errors. There are presently about 75 systematic errors in the WBT spreadsheet so it will take time to cover them all.
>
> Dealing with the narrow topic of the number of tests and how the results are presented (the statistics) has been addressed by Fabio Riva in his recent paper referred to by Xavier Brandao in his message this evening. In it he demonstrates that at a confidence interval of 90% only 15% of the stoves assessed by the WBT to save at least some fuel over a baseline stove, actually do. At a confidence on 0% some 25% of the stoves still failed to show any statistically significant fuel saving.
>
> Your citation of the Lima Consensus is interesting. It claims to anoint a WBT which had never received an external expert review. Such a review is required by the IWA - are you aware of that? Perhaps you can read it. I put it there with Harold Annegarn. The reason for doing that was to try to bring a level of professionalism to the stove community's methods. So far, in that regard, we have failed because even now, it has not passed such a review. Every examination of it finds it is severely deficient.
>
> You may also not be aware that Kirk Smith does not use the WBT4.2.3. Do you know why? In January 2008 I met with Kirk and Tami and Dean and 20 others in Seattle to discuss my recent posts on this list showing with charts of error and arguments in support that the WBT 3.1 was seriously defective. I was challenged about this - it was the principle purpose of the meeting - to clear the air. Dana Sharron was there, Nordica and John Mitchell and so on.
>
> I was greeted with a clear sense of hostility because I was challenging the foundational method of all the Aprovecho claims that Rocket Stoves were superior in every way to other types of stoves, and of course many organisations far beyond them. I began my explanation and this continued through questions and more answers. About 11 AM Kirk realised that I was correct, that there were serious conceptual errors in the test. He stood up and declared that he could not use a test method that had not been peer reviewed (which of course it hadn't).
>
> To this day students studying with Kirk at Berkeley must use the WBT3.0 and the CCT2.0.
>
> So you can start your list of people who reject the WBT with the name of Dr Kirk Smith, Berkeley, California.
>
> Then add mine, Prof Harold Annegarn who described it as "not fit for any purpose". Then add Prof Philip Lloyd who is on record as saying the reason for his rejecting it is the WBT test results were "not reproducible".
>
> If you wish to assert that those rejecting the WBT are not 'qualified' to reject it knowingly, Prof Annegarn is a nuclear physicist. Prof Lloyd, who was voted South Africa's 'intellectual of the year' a couple of years ago, is a physicist, an engineer and a chemist - a combination that is perfectly suited to making such an evaluation.
>
> There are two new papers coming out in the near future severely criticizing the WBT very specifically for its manifest conceptual errors and mathematical mistakes which include the deduction of char energy from the energy contained in the fuel needed to perform the test.
>
> You can add those authors to your list.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> List, cc Crispin
>
> 1. Crispin is objecting below (You are in no position to ‘give’ or removeNikhilnces to do anything) to my saying (further below, emphasis now added): “So, to avoid giving Nikhil a chance to continue, after he has stated that he was through with this list, I respond only with the few quotes above. “
>
> The reason I said what I said “avoid” are these two final sentences from Nikhil, received on the 14th at 1:59 PM Denver time.
>
> "I will write one more post after this and shut down. Maybe two, including an off-topic response to Ron about my 28 sins of impudence. I owe that to him and the List. “
>
> As has been apparent from my responses, I think Nikhil has made a wise decision, given that his above response followed Tom Miles (list owner) saying about Nikhil’s writing: “After six months of whining about GACC are you ever going to get around to your positive and productive recommendations for the “stovangelists”, or shall we just shut off your dripping drivel? If you have a better program let’s hear about it.”
>
>
> 2. Re my “blind support” (your statement below, saying: “But when it comes to rating the fuel consumption, the WBT metric itself is defective because it deducts the char energy remaining from the cooking session from the energy in the denominator of the fuel consumption energy. This is a serious error. It gives the wrong answer. Ron, you have been holding out for this error to be perpetuated ad infinitum. Give it up.) for the WBT, three comments:
>
> a. You still have not explained what is wrong with my support for the WBT - re what is taking place in the ISO process. To repeat - I contend you are misinterpreting what the “denominator equation - e3=e1/(1-e2)” is saying. You are contending this is a statement about charcoal improvement to a stove. I am saying it is ONLY a statement about what would be happen if there had been NO charcoal production. This goes back at least 40 years with Sam Baldwin and the VITA paper. I ask again to give one cite supporting your view. I will reconsider my position when you give me that cite. You are the one who I hear is alone, not me.
>
> b. In 9 days, I will be at the ETHOS meeting with many of the people with whom you have been arguing. I shall report back to this list whether ANY of them agree with your position. I will be talking with many of the 15 signers of the Lima-consensus, whose names can be seen at https://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus <https://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus> . I expect them to take exception to your comment on the 14th: “I am ignoring the so-called ‘Lima Consensus’ because a) it wasn’t a consensus and b) it was the sound of one American hand clapping.” If you have proof of your disparagement of that document, it would help this dialog to know it before ETHOS.
>
> c. In my last comment on this “denominator equation”, I said that I thought it was fine (indeed mandatory) for cases where charcoal was not an intentional output, but not for TLUDs and other charcoal-making stove approaches. I have reconsidered. If it is OK (mandatory) with one type of charcoal, why not all? So, I now can support its use fully with TLUDs as well. But it is also mandatory that the test protocol give the simple ratio e2/e1 (which I am not sure you support). It is my impression that your continued need to give no credit at all to char-making is what is behind your inexplicable rejection of the simple equation that everyone has been using for decades. Do you now support the legitimacy of testing using 4.2.3 for a charcoal-making stove, or not? Or do you reject 4.2.3 in all circumstances?
>
>
> 3. I will wait to respond to others objecting recently to WBT 4.2.3 until I can hear from others at ETHOS. A HUGE amount of work has gone into that document and the tier system. And, from what I hear, essentially one person alone (Crispin) is critiquing it. I urge those supporting Crispin to do some more background research. You could do worse than starting with the Lima consensus document. The full (still draft) 4.2.3 document is at http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/iwa-tiers-of-performance.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/iwa-tiers-of-performance.html> and http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html> . I contend that lab testing is imperative. I contend that there is no better lab test that boiling water. Who has a better approach?
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ron
>>
>> You are in no position to ‘give’ or remove Nikhil chances to do anything. It is clear from your approach to matters in which you take a passing interest that you respect ‘authority’ far more than you should. Appeals to authority are not a valid form of ‘proof’. This was well known to the ancient Greek philosophers. Give it up.
>>
>> You confuse attacks on policy and actions with attacks on persons. That may be the reason you attack people personally when disagreeing with their policies. Perhaps you can offer another explanation.
>>
>> The GACC policies as implemented and as announced are legitimate topics for comment, particular where there is serious harm being done. Blind support for the WBT and it defective metrics is continuing to cause hardship across the spectrum, most recently and most visibly in the call by the UN for stoves to be supplied in lots of 10,000 at a time with the ‘performance’ qualification being a WBT conducted according to the GACC’s latest version of it, using a 7 litre pot.
>>
>> There may be something ‘contextual’ about such a test and it may be that in a refugee camp there are 7 litre pots and people may boil 5 litres of water in it twice and simmer for 45 minutes. Such coincidence in the duty cannot be expected, however.
>>
>> But when it comes to rating the fuel consumption, the WBT metric itself is defective because it deducts the char energy remaining from the cooking session from the energy in the denominator of the fuel consumption energy. This is a serious error. It gives the wrong answer. Ron, you have been holding out for this error to be perpetuated ad infinitum. Give it up.
>>
>> No scientist, no authority, no engineer, can support such a defective intent. Literally, the intention is to continue using a WBT metric that claims a stove uses less fuel than it uses. There is no other interpretation. Calling ‘remaining char’ ‘stove fuel’ is to misrepresent performance. While there are nuances one can provide, the prime motive, to preserve the metric that has cause the loss of millions in stove project funding and the disappointment of millions of ‘beneficiaries’, is amoral. Give it up.
>>
>> The GACC technical leader is fully aware of the problem, are is the technical staff at the Gold Standard, the EPA, as is Berkeley Air and all the others. They have, as a group, chosen to stonewall the correction to this junk science WB Test, to the direct harm of the stove sector. Numerous individual experts with PhDs in engineering have refused to speak up in favour of correcting this deviant interpretation of performance.
>>
>> It is a moral failure to deliberately cause harm to millions of people. Doing it as a group does not absolve anyone of their individual culpability. There is even a law in South Africa holding legally responsible groups of bystanders who watch one person murder another. A law in France holds those who refuse to assist someone in trouble to account for their inaction.
>>
>> If there is anyone left on this list who doesn’t appreciate how much damage is being done, even now, to the improve stove sector, by the Water Boiling Test v4.2.3, let them contact me and I will send them a few things to read.
>>
>> A similar level of incompetence or malfeasance is being perpetrated by the claims ‘stove smoke causes pneumonia’ and all that jazz. Nikhil has laid out clearly the defective leaps of logic underlying this claim, and how the abuse of the scientific articles which, ladled with caveats, have been misused to advance impossible and unsupportable claims. Just because ‘something’ has ‘been attributed’ to some cause, does not mean that removing the attributed cause will have any impact on the ‘something’. What is being claimed in the ‘stove-solid-fuel-smoke-health-fan-stove-clean-fuel’ vortex is just the same as saying ‘correlation is causation’. Give it up.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>> List, Andrew, Tom:
>>
>> I am basically sad that Nikhil, after a few amazingly favorable recent messages about his principal past targets (GACC and Radha Muthiah), chose to continue with his past themes: “… I might as well shower as many invectives as I can…” ; “….it seems Ron himself didn’t read it…”, “ Ron appears to admire “highly qualified” junk…”; “My friend, I am afraid you don’t know zilch about DALYs. “; “I have no qualms insulting 15 British professionals,..”; “UNF is a racket…”; “…theTC 285 exercise has been reduced to a pretense of morality ..”; “Otherwise this "better biomass stoves" enterprise is doomed. (I think coal will survive.)”
>>
>> So, to avoid giving Nikhil a chance to continue, after he has stated that he was through with this list, I respond only with the few quotes above. I feel these further exemplify why I took the time to give 28 similar examples from just one message back in early December. I confess I still don’t understand the reason for such invective - especially given his brief recent turn-around for both GACC and Ms. Muthiah (that is not continued in most of today’s response).
>>
>> Glad to communicate briefly with anyone off-list on any of the points he has made below, should anyone want to know how I would have responded, save for my wanting this sad interlude to be over. But, I will only answer one or two at a time - nothing like the 28 of this message. And, I may choose to answer some on this list; I do not want to spend my time in an endless off-list dialog when my responses might be pertinent to list advancement.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <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/20170118/cebed0c1/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list