[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

[Ronal W. Larson]

Nikhil and ccs


> On Sep 5, 2017, at 8:53 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ron:
> 
> I submit there is no such things as “international standards" until incorporated in national regulations, if any enforcement is intended.
	[RWL:1  I think you are misunderstanding the expected output of TC285.  Nothing approaching “enforcement” is intended.   As I understand the output of the TC 285 group (to be in 4 parts - with the most important coming out soon), these are intended mainly to help stove developers to improve their products and to educate potential buyers on how individual stoves have done in specific tests.   I doubt you will see the word “enforcement” anywhere.  The emerging stove “industry” is a long way from being ready for that.

	I hope that if a manufacturer says his/her stove is “all Tier 4’s” - and testing has shown “all Tier 2” was closer - then I hope that manufacturer is called out publicly.  
 

> The real thankless work will come after ISO issues standards in persuading that these be adopted in national regulations, especially when they won’t be incorporated in US regulations.
	[RWL2:  There might be some national stove regulations I suppose - but I doubt that.  Especially in the US (where very few of the tested stoves will ever be sold).

>  
> 
> There are many countries where appliance and equipment standards of manufacturing countries are adopted by some blanket agreement or if the government itself buys under external finance from countries or multi-lateral institutions (e.g. power plant or mining/manufacturing equipment.)  
	[RWL3:  I suppose this is true, but don’t see how this applies to any TC 285 activity or output.

> 
> I agree with you that the concept of Tiers is awful. Consensus or not. 
	[RWL4:  Apologies.  Obviously, my term “weird” was unhelpful.  What I meant was that I doubt that “Tiers” appear at all in any other ISO document.    So “weird” as in “rare” or “non-standard".

		Rather, I think the “Tiers” concept was brilliant - and I fully endorse it.  For one, they are sufficiently broad that all should recognize that different testers will come up with numbers that are acceptable if they are within a few tenths of a tier.  Example: an efficiency computation of 37% by one tester should be considered as valid as another of 35% for the same stove - both are known as Tier 3.  The lower efficiency score could have been entirely due to a tester (maybe the same one) filling his coffee cup at just the wrong time.  Or a slightly different fuel or moisture content - etc.
   
	If the initial group had not (unanimously??) settled on Tiers - I think we would today be several years behind where we are in stove improvement.  I only know the process second hand (mostly at a half dozen stove conferences and this site), so hope others will correct me where wrong.

	What would you have proposed to replace the tier concept?

Ron

> 
> Nikhil
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> Xavier et al
> 
> 	I’d like to insert a different slant.  Setting international “standards”  (in this case only something on recommended test procedures and this weird thing called a “Tier”) is generally considered by people I have talked to as one of the least desirable ways for any intelligent person to spend their time.  To volunteer (few get paid), you have to really believe in the importance of the cause.   
> 
> 	To say that for efficiencies to be identified by Tiers (0….4, 5)  linearly related to nominal efficiencies measured by decades (10, 20,….50) doesn’t strike me as bizarre.  Anyone have a better set of tiers?  Anyone think that the concept of tiers is awful?
> 
> 	I believe you will find that ANSI and ISO staff do not find it easy to fill the ranks of standard reviewers.  There are many who have and will join to advance their own businesses.  There is big money to be made with standards that influence purchases.  Thanks to Sally and Ranyee for taking on these thankless jobs.
> 
> 	So, I trust you will agree that not everyone who says they want to be involved should be involved.
> 
> 	I agree with you that protocol development will occur outside the ISO process - AND HAS - especially for the stove world.
> 
> 	By chance I today independently found the Lima accord cite:  http://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus <http://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus>.    The key word is “consensus”.
> 
> 	This was cited in a Jetter et al 2012 paper at: http://heatkit.com/research/downloads/cookstove%20rankings%20jetter2012.pdf <http://heatkit.com/research/downloads/cookstove%20rankings%20jetter2012.pdf>   Kirk Smith is a co-author.
> 
> Ron
> 	 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170905/d2ae193b/attachment.html>