[Stoves] Various WBT equations; A matter of principle

[Bond, Tami C]

Hello friends,

I certainly cannot keep up with all your traffic, sorry!

I do not post here much so I may have to re-introduce myself— I work a bit on field testing of stoves and I am Convener of TC285 (ISO) Working Group 1, Conceptual Framework (hereafter WG1). I was also one of the flunkies running around the Lima conference attempting to gain support for the “consensus” document.

I would like to respond to a couple of the points made here:

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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pciaonline.org_testing_lima-2Dconsensus&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=EfROsFehGP6InILrJ6I2RRu_XfTinnpJMLtzie69RNw&m=Gq4M61Tt3QgoU6dDkEONxUFgENQiV4t0EL7GfuPMY8I&s=ehcEALT6M_wx4K5k6nKsu08AIV3IPPZWC6z-BuJdKVs&e=> .

At the time of Lima, I did my best to (1) talk to as many representatives of different countries as possible, and (2) to understand their objections that needed to be addressed before moving forward. The document did undergo many revisions in order to account for those. However, I should emphasize that there WERE many points to be worked out, that the “Consensus” was just an agreement to move forward with a TEMPORARY placeholder, and that we should welcome discussion of those matters that hadn’t been worked out. The “Lima Consensus” was not a holy-water blessing on everything that came after it— likewise the IWA. It was a handshake, an agreement to work together and begin, and while some kind of beginning platform was agreed upon, the process does also include questioning and evaluating previous assumptions. This is a normal part of the scientific process, and I should be very uncomfortable if it were dismantled.

...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?
[snip] ...And, from what I hear, essentially one person alone (Crispin) is critiquing it.  I urge those supporting Crispin to do some more background research.

I have to disagree with this statement. Within WG1, where we are now discussing the definitions of efficiency, there are several people who support the critiques, and I believe they have a firm and technical basis. The final outcome of the present discussions, I hope, will recognize and account for all valid technical critiques. I also hope that the final outcome will provide acceptable and welcome methods for stakeholders to communicate the benefits of charcoal-making stoves.

I may not support all of Crispin’s positions, but I thoroughly respect his ability to identify potential technical critiques and ways forward, and this statement does come from a lot of background research. On the chance that an error has persisted for decades, why then, urgency to examine it is greater, not less.

Neither might I support all of Nikhil’s positions, but I read his messages as a call to take all assumptions (technical and programmatic) with a grain of salt, in the search for continual improvement.

As a scientist and engineer, I welcome these critiques, as I feel that continual questioning drives us toward excellence, which is a tough target to achieve in the face of complex physical, social and programmatic contexts. We often hear about the “2.5 billion” or “3 billion” people who rely on biomass fuels, and we know that the stakes are high. I would argue that the stakes are *too* high to leave room for pride, carelessness, failure to re-evaluate assumptions, or reliance on anything but the best evidence.

I also encourage all colleagues, as I do in the WG1 process, to state their criticisms concisely and respectfully so that others may have the benefit of considering them. Crafting the message does take extra care, but triple-time spent to write a clear message is a lot more effective than saying the same thing three times.

With best regards,

Tami Bond



---------------------------------
T. C. Bond - Nathan M. Newmark Distinguished Professor - John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow 2014
U of Illinois: Civil & Environmental Engineering - Atmospheric Sciences (Affiliate) - Women & Gender in Global Perspectives (Affiliate)
publish.illinois.edu/humanenvironments<http://publish.illinois.edu/humanenvironments>; www.hiwater.org<http://www.hiwater.org>

The only problem worth solving is the problem of how we govern ourselves. — Karl Schroeder, Degrees of Freedom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170119/2956b0d6/attachment.html>