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

Frank Shields franke at cruzio.com
Sat Jan 21 11:49:59 CST 2017


Dear Xavier and Stovers,

What makes a test method good or bad is only how the results are interpreted and used. The method needs to support the conclusion. So we don’t say it is the fault of the method - just how it was used. I am sure it (WBT) did a lot of good at Aprovecho when optimizing gap measurements combustion materials and chamber dimensions. .   

> Crispin is right, I could not agree more with him on that: before being able to do the R&D that we need so much, we need valid metrics. There is no way around that. This should be our first priority.

I also agree. The second is the path to get there. That is the Six Box system:

1) Fuel
2) fuel introduction into the combustion chamber
3) Combustion chamber
4) cooking utensils (pot size, metal material, etc)
5) cooking process (cover pot, stir three times, ad salt etc)
6) Task completion (must be a sharp point when task is considered complete)

Each has its own requirement for ‘valid metrics’.

Another is how we rate stoves. We do not have a long list with best stoves at the top. 
They must be rated as to (A) Fuel limitations (whats available) and (B) Task completions (what people cook). 

 This is not the usual test method (ASTM, ISO) approach. The purpose of the test method is to place the stove being tested into a group that is good for a particular location and task. Within that ‘location and task’ we have several stoves to pick the best. Or, better, the customer can pick. 

Other conditions like safety, PM25, etc are only added requirements - not part of the test.

Regards

Frank





> On Jan 19, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Vahid Jahangiri <vj at lifelinefund.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes, Xavier, your points are right on. WBT is only good if you are in initial stages of a design and just to have some idea about certain parameters, otherwise it is useless and we are all suffering from it.  Worst of all, the testers affiliated with various regional labs just do not have the capacity to run the test.  One time, we got our stove results back with 6% efficiency because the testers put Open fire at 24% as the baseline.  
> 
> Your points below are correct. 
> 
> How many tests results are probably meaningless, and so useless? How ignorant were we about the real performance of so many stoves? Many of us could see how different performance in the field was, compared to performance in the lab.
> How many not-at-all-improved stoves were built, promoted, and disseminated?
> How many stove projects or companies failed because of a test that was problematic in the first place?
> How many efforts, how much money was lost because of poor testing?
> 
> Vahid 
> 
> 
> From: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:08:13 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
>  
> Dear friends,
>  
> There have been a lot of fierce discussions on the stove discussion list lately. I think most of us are unhappy with a certain number of sector-wide issues.
>  
> There is one thing in particular that appalled me. I read the study by Riva et al.:
> "Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves"
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308900170_2016_Riva_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308900170_2016_Riva_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves>
>  
> I am appalled that we are in 2017, and again another study shows how much the Water Boiling Test is flawed, and is leading us in the wrong direction(s).
> I am appalled when I think that Crispin has been telling us about it all these years (10 years now?), and his warnings have too often fallen on deaf ears.
>  
> Radha Muthiah, the CEO of the GACC, said in her introduction of the GACC 2016 annual report: "The Alliance worked with UNHCR to develop procurement guidelines that include evaluation of stove and fuel performance, affordability, usability, safety, and durability. This is an example of how organizations can adapt international standards to support their priorities and decision-making."
> Crispin mentioned that the procurement guidelines were based upon the WBT.
> We are in 2017, and important decisions for thousand of stoves to refugees are still based on the WBT, a test which does not allow us to really know how a stove will perform. This is scary.
>  
> At the end of last year, Prakti was commissionned by the World Bank to review the testing ecosystem in India. I had the chance to talk with many stakeholders, especially from the U.S., and to have enlightening discussions. Things have barely started to move it seems. A few people have started to see the shortcomings of the WBT. But this is all too slow.
>  
> What we fail to measure are the damages.
> How many tests results are probably meaningless, and so useless? How ignorant were we about the real performance of so many stoves? Many of us could see how different performance in the field was, compared to performance in the lab.
> How many not-at-all-improved stoves were built, promoted, and disseminated?
> How many stove projects or companies failed because of a test that was problematic in the first place?
> How many efforts, how much money was lost because of poor testing?
>  
> Crispin is right, I could not agree more with him on that: before being able to do the R&D that we need so much, we need valid metrics. There is no way around that. This should be our first priority.
>  
> We need to act now; but, to act and get results, we must focus on what is important, on what is central, on what is foundational. Now, we need good testing; it is as simple as that.
>  
> The goal is not to point fingers, nor put the blame on anyone. What is done is done, the only thing that matters now is: what do we do from here? We need to work together constructively.
> We cannot say we didn't know.
>  
> I discussed with Crispin, Adam, and a few others. I am starting an advocacy action with this email actually.
> It is very simple.
> I think we need to address the GACC. Despite all the criticism, the GACC did a lot of work for the stove sector, and, like it or not, is still regarded as our main representative to policy makers and those with the capital to fund meaningful change at scale. We need to be working with them.
>  
> We would ask the GACC:
> ·       to publicly acknowledge that the WBT has major shortcomings
> ·       to remove the protocol from its website, so cookstoves sector stakeholders are not using it
> ·       to actively promote development and use of other, valid, protocols
>  
> There were a lot of heated discussions around the WBT in the past. Because of that, other protocols were included in the TC 285 process. This is not good enough.
> We don't want invalid protocols to be promoted alongside valid ones. I believe the WBT is still the most used protocol, and anyone can download it on the web, and (mis)use it. That does a lot of harm.
> Here it is, on top of the page:
> http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html>
>  
> Good and valid protocols do exist. They work very well, give more and better data than the WBT. We do not have, at all, to use the WBT. Why would we keep using it at all?
>  
> Recent articles have shown that we are losing credibility as a sector. We cannot regain it if we keep using invalid testing. I think this sector is comprised of good people who want to do good science and build healthy foundations.
>  
> If you think you are one of these people, please contact me at my email address to show your support for this initiative:
> xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
> If you have an opinion on the matter, let's please discuss it here on the stovelist. If you dont agree, if you think there are good scientific grounds for the WBT as a valid protocol, or think for this or another reason that it should still be used, please let's discuss it, in scientific terms, on this list.
>  
> The outcomes of this discussion will be brought to the GACC, and we will continue discussing it with them.
> We have all dedicated a significant portion of our lives to this work; let us not let bad science, or past wrong decisions undermine all that we have accomplished, or all that we might. Can we stand together, whatever our differences of opinion on the best stoves, or fuels, or development practices and agree that in testing our assumptions, pseudo-science and demonstrably flawed methods have no place in this sector?
>  
> Please join, please tell people around you about this initiative.
>  
> 2017 is just starting, let's start it on the right foot.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Xavier
> _______________________________________________
> 

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com



franke at cruzio.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170121/13ee2b52/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list