<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Frank<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I was thinking of applying it in a very different context: not looking at the performance of a stove with different ingredients, so to speak, but if a test is useful for predicting performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Suppose you test a stove using 4 different methods in a lab. The might in fact be 4 different methods of analysing data from a single test. In other words the data collected is well agreed by there are alternative ways of looking at the data and determining the ‘efficiency’ or emissions or savings. So you get 4 different outputs, or more accurately, 4 sets of outputs. Which analysis tool delivers better information?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Then you put the stoves into the field and measure in-field performance. The method used in the field may matter a great deal. One thing I have noticed is that the people working outside the WBT-CCT orbit use uncontrolled cooking tests and get what appear to be realistic measures of what is actually happening in terms of fuel savings. The measurement of ‘real’ performance can be debated separately. The point is to compare lab tests to what is an agreeable measurement of actual field performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>As you know, most stove selections are made on the basis of lab tests because that is what is available. Many stove projects promulgate new technologies, or newly adapted technologies. Testing and <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Field proofs’ are few.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>If you plot the actual performance as a centre line and then plot the claimed performance from lab tests as above or below that line, and the claimed performance is consistently above or below (as defined by the W-E method) then a red light should go on. If lab results are widely distributed both above and below the line, it would indicate that the method is inaccurate. If it is consistently on one side, it would indicate a calculation error which can be corrected. If the correlation is random then is has no predictive ability (i.e. is not making a useful assessment of the performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The point of the W-E Rules as I understand it is to look for systemic problems: if there are lab results that are inconsistent with real performance, one should look into the method for causes of the difference. The result would be a better test.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Similarly, if the field measurements are inconsistent with lab tests of how a product should perform, one can also look at the field tests for inaccuracies or different calculation methods. I see the field side as consisting of two different types of evaluation: one which is pretty much the duplication of the lab test but in the field (CCT) and one which measures what people actually do when they cook what they want, measured in a similar manner (UCT). It is the latter which I am convinced provides an assessment of real performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>There is a paper coming from the SeTAR Centre looking at the number of UCT’s that would have to be conducted to get a statistically meaningful assessment of performance (DUE Conference, Cape Town in April). The development of this method (also used by others in ‘stoves’) provides an opportunity to check the efficacy of lab test methods. As I see it now, the various test methods (protocols) give results/accuracies which vary a lot from the real numbers. The W-E Rules can show us how they deviate and under what conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>++++++++++</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>Dear Crispin, and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>It seems the Western Electric Rule (WER) is used when 1) we think we are ready to put all the systems together and want to determine if they work combined or 2) We want to convince (prove to) some NGO that we need money funded into an international stove QC program so to move forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>From what I could understand (way over my head in many parts) is this looks at nothing more than ‘noise levels’ of a system. We have enough (IMO) in each segment of the systems to work on first before there is a reason to put all systems together and look at the whole. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'> The small part that I look at (biomass fuel) is not even quantified for ranges of parameters for any of the stoves developed. Moisture, particle size and description, particle density, proximate analysis and their ranges need to be researched per stove to market that stove for a fuel area and compare that stove against others marketed for the same fuel criteria. That noise level in itself is enough to make the WER pointless to look at. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>Frank</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>