[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT (Re: Xavier)

[Traveller]

Xavier:

I support your stance in the following post, even though not in the
"Advocacy action" thread but evidently a part of it.

You need not apologize that you are not a scientist. It is more than enough
that you know you are not one. There are some scientists who do not know
they are not scientists.

Science is a spirit, not a matter of credentials (though I do have one
degree in science).

When inquiries are masked by vested interests, and words and silences are
bought and sold, science is tainted.

BTW, my impression is that the apparent disagreement between Ron and
Crispin is more than just about the "denominator". Fuel and energy
consumption may be separated according to the "service standard" I have
been asking for. If one desires to produce char instead of, or in addition
to, ash, that is another product. The whole controversy can be set aside by
simply agreeing that it is the total efficiency (reduction in economic
costs, thermodynamics and resource conservation be damned) that matters and
that it is the user who chooses, optimizing among all the desired
performance characteristics and economic constraints (difficult to know a
priori or even with surveys, but academia can go on generating blather
about "adoption" and "implementation").

Back 40+ years ago, some radical economists realized that the proof of
instability and collapse of the capitalist system was not in the third
derivatives being of the right sign but in institutional, anthropological
analysis.

Same here with WBT. It is to be condemned not just for a denominator but
because it is conceptually false as Crispin argues.

It has also served some vested interests, the most significant being
inertia. Otherwise known as intellectual laziness. Secondary benefits of
such laziness accrue to GACC and WHO.

Nikhil



Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 23:38:29 +0100
From: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
        <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,      "adam at instove.org"
        <adam at instove.org>
Cc: "ederby at winrock.org" <ederby at winrock.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics
Message-ID: <6278d8c9-80db-5b20-4698-e269643602e3 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"

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
**

---------
(India +91) 909 995 2080
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170129/73781478/attachment.html>