[Stoves] ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ron,

There are a lot of points of discussion.
Some of the questions are also addressed to me, forgive me and let me 
know if I don't answer all the questions you had for me.

/Can you (anyone) report on how well the WBT has supported your own 
internal testing.  Can you think of any approach better than 
heating/boiling water to come up with fuel consumption comparisons 
between stoves?/
The Heterogeneous Testing Protocol. From our testing team at Prakti, it 
is a flexible protocol, easy to use and it can perform any cooking task.

*/I would also note that if the three (?) tests are very different, this 
could indicate a problem with the stove - not the test or testers./
*I don't see how a stove model who seem to be mass-produced, each unit 
being exactly the same, can give 3 very different test results.*
*See the picture here:*
*www.primestoves.com/img/manufacturing/small-03.jpg

*[RWL:  Xavier seems unconcerned about the main issue (the “denominator 
equation”) separating Crispin and myself - and his reason 
for unhappiness there is still a mystery.  I still do not understand any 
detail of Xavier’s concerns - and have earlier responded on each of 
about 7 cites he sent me.
*I am not unconcerned. As I said, I think the denominator equation is an 
important question, and it is good that you are discussing it with 
Crispin. There is progress, I believe, in the discussion.
Since I am not a scientist, there is not much I can do or bring to that 
discussion. There are other important questions being discussed on this 
list, about health impact, fuels, TLUDs, and many other subjects. I am 
happy to see them take place, but I cannot contribute much.
Now, do I think the various issues with the WBT are far more important 
then the denominator equation question? Yes I do.
On the topic of whether or not we should keep the WBT, knowing of all 
these issues, I believe I can contribute. Because this discussion is 
important to project implementers, business managers, decision-makers. 
People like Vahid and Camilla depend directly on the testing protocols 
in place to run their business successfully.

*I still do not understand any detail of Xavier’s concerns
*I thought I was clear, but maybe I didn't express myself very clearly.*
*To me, it is very simple.
There is a growing number of practitioners complaining about the 
variability with WBT results.
There is a growing number of studies pointing at intrinsic flaws inside 
the WBT protocols, both on metrics and repeatability. The studies tell 
that it is impossible to know really how a stove performs, because of 
the margin of error.
When I make a stove, I want to know if it is performant. I, 
unfortunately, have to test it for that. A testing protocol which 
results are as uncertain as the lottery is of no use to me.
How could I not be concerned?

This, below, this is what concerns me:
Long version:
" However, different authors have been raising doubts about the 
consistency of WBT results, focusing in particular on three issues: (i) 
L’Orange et al. [6] highlighted the role of thermodynamic uncertainties 
(viz. variable steam production and boiling point determination) on 
results repeatability; (ii) Zhang et al. [7] raised questions about the 
rationale of some calculations and about metrics terminology; (iii) 
finally, Wang et al. [8] criticised the statistical approach recommended 
by this standardised laboratory-based test to evaluate, communicate and 
compare performances and emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the 
arithmetic average of three replicate tests."
"The results suggest how considering only the mean values of the outputs 
of the WBT and neglecting intrinsic uncertainties of the results may 
lead to make large errors and misinterpretations regarding the ICSs’ 
performance. Indeed, for all the three Classes analysed, at 90% degree 
of confidence, the percentage of ‘‘improved” stoves obtained by 
considering the mean values of the WBT is among 3 and 6 times higher 
than the percentage resulted from this analysis at least. At 99% 
confidence level, only 15% of all the supposed ‘‘improved” stoves 
emerged as real ICSs at most. When enough statistical information is 
provided from WBT results, only the Stove with fan model of cookstoves 
seemed to reveal real improvements with a probability greater than 93%. 
This work shows how neglecting the epistemic statistical uncertainties 
originated from WBTs – as done by a large portion of the literature, 
which reports results from few lab-tests replicates without sufficient 
statistical information – might lead to misinterpreted evaluations of 
ICSs’ performance, with potential negative impact on beneficiaries."
The short version is enough to feel very concerned: "This work shows how 
neglecting the epistemic statistical uncertainties originated from WBTs 
– as done by a large portion of the literature, which reports results 
from few lab-tests replicates without sufficient statistical information 
– might lead to misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’ performance, with 
potential negative impact on beneficiaries."

I haven't seen your answer to the critiques raised by the studies.

Ron, maybe you are able to answer the many questions all these authors 
are raising in their researches, so I would like to re-ask you these 
questions:

  * do you contest the role of thermodynamic uncertainties (viz.
    variable steam production and boiling point determination) on
    results repeatability? Can you ensure there are no uncertainties? Of
    if there are, can you ensure they have no effect on results
    repeatability? How?
  * do you have an answer to the questions about the rationale of some
    calculations raised by Zhang et al.?
  * do you support the statistical approach recommended by this
    standardised laboratory-based test to evaluate, communicate and
    compare performances and emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the
    arithmetic average of three replicate tests? How do you guarantee
    this statistical approach ensure good comparison of stove performances?

I don't need to be a scientist myself, to understand there is something 
wrong when I hear these researchers sounding the alarm(s).
When you are an administrator running a hospital, and both researchers 
and patients tell you that one drug is harmful, and you hear nothing 
from the supporters of that drug, I believe your role is to listen to 
the alarms and stop distributing the drug. You don't need to become a 
chemist yourself, get a PhD and understand everything about the inner 
workings of the drug to make a decision.
This is the precautionary principle.
The GACC is the closest we have from an administrator.
There's a song which says: "inaction is a weapon of mass destruction".

Best,

Xavier
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170126/5767640d/attachment.html>