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

[Traveller]

Crispin:

Thank you for clarification about "burn sequence". From what I remember,
the trouble with WBT - apart from the conceptual errors and manipulations
of the protocol - is not that it is for boiling water but that the "burn
sequence" is not representative of cooking tasks generally. Maybe in some
contexts, but then we do not yet have an inventory of contexts and burn
sequences. Combined with the fact that we do not have an inventory of
biomass qualities (including chemistries), "traditional" stove types (other
than "three-stone", even which has a great diversity in burn sequences),
the Stove Performance Inventory and other test results do not have general
validity.

I don't think specifying one "burn sequence" is enough even for individual
contexts. There should be at least five to ten burn sequences and
variations in timing (daily, seasonal) and quantities (including for
water/space heating as a co-product) for individual contexts. That way,
some changes in cooking cultures can be accommodated over a medium-term
(five  years).

Any international standardization of household cooking is ludicrous. Hence,
WHO IAQG and ISO IWA process are also, I am afraid, ludicrous.

Or worse.

Nikhil

----------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:24:36 +0000
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
        <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting
        the WBT
Message-ID:
        <YTOPR01MB02353B66DB9626376FA9BAC6B1760 at YTOPR01MB0235.
CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Jiddu



I want to take a moment to correct an impression you left in your timely
message about the problems you have experience as a physicist and stove
tester with the WBT.

?The WBT protocol is unreproducible. In my opinion largely due to its vague
boiling and simmering phases, where I believe something like cooking power
(in Watts) is much more suitable.

I am, like Camilla, a supporter of the CSI Indonesia protocol. It's
repoducible and relevant. However, it is only relevant for Indonesia and
hence more relevant protocols need to be developed.?

It is a misunderstanding to call the Indonesian cooking sequence a
?protocol?. That is a burn sequence, to be exact, and is not ?part of the
CSI protocol?.

This must be understood clearly it has been widely and erroneously
mentioned that if the test sequence (burn cycle, in outer jurisdictions)
sis changed, it constitutes a ?different protocol?. This is a
misunderstanding.

A testing protocol sets out what to measure and how well to do that, how to
calculate and what to report, and in what form. It is not something to do with
the sequence of operations of the stove that are being measured. You can
have 1 protocol and 1000 tests sequences representing 1000 meals or
patterns of use.

So in order to use the CSI protocol, all you need is a relevant use
sequence starting with ignition and ending at some point. After the
sequence (previously described) is validated as representing what you are
trying to emulate you can use it to make assessments of how the stoves will
perform on that basis.

The protocol remains the same.

This is one reason why the same protocol can be used to test low pressure
boilers, space heating stoves, cooking functions or all three at the same
time.


Regards

Crispin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170129/2c8b9567/attachment.html>