[Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT

[Xavier Brandao]

Ron,

 

Remarkable how you always deliberately ignore the many questions I am asking you. As well as the answers I’m giving you. I already told you my opinion on all these matters.

But you pretend not to have read, only to ask again later on.

 

Fine, I can repeat 1000 times if needed.

 

«All the protocols mentioned below already do boil water. »

Unbelievable. They don’t boil water, they heat water. This is what I told you already the 02/09/2017:

« The water is not boiled, since it has been proved it was rendering the test results false. The water is the medium used to measure heat transferred to the pot.

It is not about performing a cooking task (boiling water), falsely considered universal, and comparing (or being in fact unable to compare) how stoves fare doing that task. It is about understanding the power delivered by the stove.

Please read the February paper from Lombardi and al. which explains well how different the protocols are.

It also tells why the HTP and WHT are vastly superior to the WBT.

The CSI is even better, because of the added element of contextuality. »

And Crispin replied to you on that as well, possibly several times.

 

« What many protocols that you laud don’t do is make any attempt to even measure char produced.  It is ludicrous to tell a stove producer who is marketing a char-making stove (which happens also to be cleaner and more efficient even ignoring char - with high Tier rating in all categories) that you’re sorry - but the approved stove protocol for that country says you must ignore all char when you calculate a Tier. »

The CSI actually measures the remaining fuel. Here is what the protocol says:

« The energy consumption rating, whether expressed in M] or in an equivalent mass of raw fuel, is based on the need to draw new raw fuel for the replication of the standard task from the available resource, when possible reusing leftover fuel from a previous replication. It is expressed as the number of MegaJoules theoretically available from the fuel consumed, as received (AR). This approach is taken to avoid using a mass of fuel consumed as a metric. Each time a test is repeated, usable fuel leftover from a previous test will be included, if the stove can burn it. If not, 'fuel consumed’ will be the net energy equivalent all new raw fuel entering the stove per burn cycle. »

« Emissions of pollutants are reported from ignition of the fire until the completion of the task including any following burnout phase if that is the local practice.

If the local practice is to leave the fuel remaining in the fire after cooking to burn out (often applied to tasks such as drying fuel for the next day or drying clothes), all resulting emissions ofthat phase are included in the total emissions. This is the case even if no cooking is done at the very beginning or at the very end because those emissions may create exposure for the family. The Technical Test burn cycle will include this because it is tuned for cultural relevance. »

 

Now, if this is not enough, there are other ways to calculate and display the benefits of charcoal leftover by a charcoal-making stove. Show how the beneficiaries can get income from the charcoal saved. Anything but an incorrect efficiency or fuel saving number. Crispin gave you a method. It is not difficult, and there are ways to valorize the charcoal saved, and use it as a sales point to get funding or to get clients.

 

« [RWL4  Remember the Tier approach was unanimously (I think) recommended at the Lima meeting. »  

Which also recommended the WBT, and was ages ago.

Funny how you always go as far back as the Lima « consensus » from 2011.

That’s what I told you in my email of the 15/12/2017:

« Ron, I hope, I really hope you are not talking about the Lima consensus, and the signing of the IWA, because I was at the latter, and we all agree it was forced-fed to us.

We were pressed during the whole workshop to adopt a text, even imperfect, so we could correct it later on. We were pressed to sign, because it was said it was be the only way forward. »

Crispin just replied to you:

“People sometimes hold their nose and abstain from voting. Sometimes they vote yes to end the pain of participation. Sometimes they vote yes because the package is tolerable or misunderstood. Sometimes things are put in over the objections of 90% of the experts. Surely you are aware of that.”

 

A lot of things have happened since 2011.

 

« What do you (or anyone) find fault with about Tiers? »

Me, nothing. I told you already about one year ago, the 16/02/2017:

« No. It is practical to have tiers, a bit like energy ratings for refrigerators or light bulbs.
I am opposed to that if it is scientifically invalid, like it seems to be. »

 

« But very helpful to achieving better stoves - I think the answer is a clear yes.  And your answer to this question is what? »

See above.

 

« I think the evidence is strong that Tiers are helpful.  Kirk Harris says they are.  This is a very complicated topic and we need a shorthand. »

Where is the evidence showing the Tiers are helpful?

Again, I prefer to repeat in case you fail to understand, I have no opinion on Tiers.

 

« You are not giving any rationale for dropping them - but it seems clear you are opposed to them. »

Nope, I’m not giving any. I think Crispin is, but I’m not.

I am not opposed to Tiers, I am not for it either. I am opposed to the WBT.

 

« The vast majority of the experts working in WG2 of the ISO285 process are telling us that it is reliable. »

Where are the proofs it is reliable? Where is the scientific demonstration? Where are the peer reviewed articles?

 

« I hope this comes up for serious discussion at ETHOS and someone can report back on the discussion (and any “vote” if there is one). »

I hope too. I hope it is held and reported transparently, that people speak freely their mind. I hope it is recorded.

 

« I am claiming here that you have enrolled a very small subset of test experts.  I am predicting an overwhelming favorable discussion - and that GACC should heed that discussion. »

There’s no harm in claiming. Let’s see what subset you are able to come up with. Don’t forget to write down the names.

Test experts are good, but I’d rather enroll stove practitioners and manufacturers, the ones who have been selling stoves outside of the U.S.

 

So, I ask you one more time to find me the same number of people who are willing to risk their academic credibility by saying that the WBT is reliable and that it should be used.

What may give you the impression that there are a vast majority of WBT supporters, is that the past WBT promoters do not want to admit they were wrong all this time. There is a vast embarrassed silence you might interpret as support for the WBT. But no one will ever bet a penny on the WBT. It’s not worth a rat’s ass.

 

« I would urge that GACC make no moves of any kind until they and we can see what WG2 has come up with - and the objections that remain. »

I like the expression « I urge to make no move ».

Sure, let’s advocate for red tape and status quo. Immobilism. Anything but critical thinking. Remember that we launched the initiative addressed to the GACC one year ago. We have been told to wait. The GACC sure did deliver on waiting.

The water of the well is toxic, it has been proven by studies, and you are asking us to keep drinking it while the Supreme Court is (maybe) resolving the environmental issue.

 

« I have put a fair amount of time into this - and willingly admit I have no idea “what the problem is about”. »

Then I cannot help you.

 

« Time is wasting - and we don’t have time »

Such wise words. See, we really agree on something here Ron, for once.

Wait, wait … Weren’t you asking just above to wait for the WG2 outputs?

 

« [RWL13:  And you also said you have not been involved in the (I think) successful WG2 effort. »

Nope, I haven’t had the privilege.

 

« But it makes zero sense to stop when you are almost done (on the key - WG2 - portion) »

I never said anything about stopping the TC 285 work. It can go on for 90 more years, if this is what some people want. I do not expect anything from the TC 285, I want us to act and take decisions on testing protocols now. 

 

« I repeat, your group, from my knowledge (mostly at ETHOS meetings and stove camps, but also as the first coordinator of this list), is in a small minority. »
Then maybe you should go out of Oregon once in a while.

 

« [RWL15:  For one - me.   I see no-one promoting char-making stoves on your list. »

Go ahead and ask the signees if they have anything against any technology.

 

« [RWL16:  Sure, but you are calling to restart a 5 year process.  We don’t have time for such non-sense. »

« That is already embedded in what you are calling to start over. »

You have beaten your own olympic record in intellectual dishonesty. Congratulations, because it was not an easy task.

 

Since January 2017, I told exactly that Ron, many times, and you know it very well:

·         We have to stop using the WBT – NOW

·         We have to use the long-time existing, immediately available, easy to use alternative protocols – NOW

·         If someone thinks the WBT is reliable and should be used, he/she should speak and present arguments – NOW

·         If someone thinks transitioning to alternative protocols is difficult, he/should should say so, and why - NOW

·         If someone thinks other alternative protocols should be developed, he/she should say so, and why, and we should start working on it - NOW

 

Clear?

 

Ron, I understood very well what you have been saying so far. You don’t care much about the scientific validity of a protocol, nor its reliability, as long as it presents your stoves in a positive light.

 

Then I have great news from you, you probably heard about my new protocol, the Dice Roll Test (DRT). You can get your stoves on Tiers as well. You should really try it. Good news, it is simple to use, and it is available to you right now.

I also have another one which involves throwing darts. You’ll love it. You’ll get high rankings for your stoves, guaranteed.

 

Best,

 

Xavier



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180126/cd5e6a4f/attachment.html>