<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Ranyee<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks for joining the conversation on the Stoves list. We seem to get more response than on the other site which I understand is under revision. I appreciate your taking the time to read the relevant messages.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>We’re looking forward to seeing the detailed proposed protocol. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The Tool Testing Toolbox is an approach to providing an agreed science platform. We could have an ISO standard that says if you want to measure thermal efficiency between the fire and the pot here is how to determine it… If that method is used, the result is valid, no matter what the pot size, the fuel used and the power level at the time. It is an investigative tool. As all these factors can be normalized the results are directly comparable. It is however necessary to report the results in a way that allows a skilled reader to understand what the result claims. At the moment readers are rarely aware of what the ‘efficiency’ number really contains. Most readers think it refers to the amount of raw fuel that will be consumed performing the task described. The UNFCCC has this concept written into the GEF and CDM methodology. But a WBT efficiency does state the relative fuel consumption. In fact the raw fuel used is not reported. It reports the energy absorbed by the pot based (only) on water metrics divided by a mass of dry fuel that has the same energy content as the energy calculated to have been generated by the fire. This is a very different figure from the dry fuel consumption, and different from the raw fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As the purpose of many projects is to ‘save raw fuel’ the confusion results in people not getting what they are paying for (program pays, fuel is not saved).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>For all protocol development, we at the Alliance have been emphasizing the need for review by broad stakeholders – regional testing centers, manufacturers, investors, and consumer representatives as much as possible, so we hope that the review process can continue with this effort. At one point Crispin had questioned whether this process leads to independent review. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is not really dependent on my opinion. I work for several large clients who want to know if they are getting what they are paying for, basically. I am not allowed to provide that answer. It is evaluated independently.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>I think independence is a tricky concept, because it’s unclear who the independence would be from. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Because it is to be independent, large clients can engage protocol review organisations like TUV Rhineland, protocol development assisting organisations like the Desert Research Unit or scientific defenders of the community like SGS which rates performance for most stove introduced into the EU. None of these organisations are involved in the GACC protocol development process. They are professional scientific organisations. They have experience at experiment design and protocol review methods.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>But I think a better way to achieve the broad goal is to have inclusive and public review (if you have enough voices, the result is somewhat independent from everyone). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In the past the internal review of test methods has not produced reliable results. Because of this, all tests conducted in the past require corrections ‘forward’ to be able to know what the actual test result was. I have had to develop methods for doing this because people have existing tests and they want to know ‘what the real answer is’. Money is changing hands based on the answer so it is an important calculation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Some test results can be updated easily if the raw data is available. If a spreadsheet with the raw data is available the correction is pretty straightforward. It cannot provide all necessary metrics because the WBT experiment is not constructed to provide them, but major corrections can be made ‘forward’. What does not work is to try to introduce the calculation errors into current valid tests as a way of generating a ‘backward’ comparison. The reason is that old tests bias the result unequally not only between stoves but between fuels and fuel moisture. It is very likely that such a recalculation provides misleading comparisons. This means that taking a 4.2.1 test result and, based on the raw data, recalculating a 4.1.2 or 3.1 result gives a different output. The emissions and performance will be ‘significantly’ different – i.e. statistically detectable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>I think the issues to especially focus on will be ones that impact the various stakeholders - testing feasibility, resources needed (time, financial, equipment), clarity for communicating results, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think I have addressed these issues above. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>As Dean mentioned, we are focused on how to integrate field considerations into best practices for testing and standards. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is good. When the discussion is broadened we can assess the proposals. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>We had much discussion at the Forum (notes are currently being polished), and it will continue. It will be important to work out how we fit the different protocols together, when which protocol is used, based on context, resources, goals. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What I am proposing is that we agree first on the concepts needed to generate a relevant and reasonably precise and intercomparable test result. After we have to concepts agreed, we can agree on what the relevant metrics are. After that: the definitions of the metrics and in which contexts they are valid. The application of measurement methods requires that certain things be measured and reported. For thermal efficiency, from a fuel supply point of fuel, we may have ‘fuel efficiency’. From a fire-to-pot point of view, we may have ‘energy efficiency’. From an engineering perspective we may have ‘heat transfer efficiency’. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For each of these there are normal engineering methods which have been widely agreed. We may need to adapt the terminology a bit but the underlying principles are the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One we have a number of ‘tools’ (the package of understandings and definitions for one metric) we can conduct a valid test in segments. Segments can be identified either by experience or rigorous analysis. It is not very difficult. A standard or common garden variety WBT has efficiency, energy consumption and power measurements, for example. Simmering is a low power task at a power level suited to the stove and the pot. They are separated because one cannot get the same metrics from simmering as one can get from boiling (because of the lack of a change in enthalpy – heat content – of a ‘perfect simmer’). Thus two tools are required each with its own definitions. Ant WBT performed using validated tools would provide a valid result – for any stove-pot-fuel combination and can be reported as such.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Because stove programmes are becoming more and more dependent on field observations (actual performance) we can expect more pressure to develop valid tools that will work in a wide variety of circumstances. Indeed we are under that pressure right now. The reason is people are tired of funding failed stove programmes. They fail because a) people don’t want to use the products or b) the product does last long enough to be worth buying or c) the product does not perform as claimed or d) the product is not flexible enough to cook the foods and perform the tasks needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the test is not culturally relevant it will not provide meaningful comparisons. The idea that hundreds of protocols will be needed is not, however, correct. Scientific tools are already provided for normalising results.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>How would newly developed procedures supplement, partially replace, replace existing protocols? Of course, this is also related to the goal for harmonization as raised in the IWA. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Whatever process is used, the methods used in the past have not provided useable tools. That is why I am awake long into the night corresponding with other practitioners trying to rush to market tests that are valid for the circumstances were we are working. We are frequently asked for ‘WBT’ results and ‘the real answers’. That is an indictment, not of our motivations, but of our achievements to date. It is a bit embarrassing!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>Paul also raised the issue of recalculating older test results so they can be comparable or harmonized. I think another issue to consider is how much have technologies changed and are the older test results still applicable. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My concern is that the Stove Inventory is a chart of performance measured with tools that provide dramatically different results for the same stove. I am not exaggerating. If the use of the output number is to trade Carbon offsets (and it is) then reporting that a 19% fuel efficient stove is 54% efficient constitutes malpractice. That is the view of the people paying the piper.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>We are also planning discussions to map out a strategy for integrating future testing results and data together, especially to communicate stove performance (IWA Tiers) that has been independently evaluated. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is strongly seconded by me!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>Part of the discussion should be around what is the minimal set of data that the testing centers need to share to facilitate collaboration and harmonization among the different centers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I can open that conversation by suggesting that if a claim is publicly made the raw data (in the form of the reporting spreadsheet on which the calculations were made) is also made public. It may be possible to limit it to that information needed to recalculate the result based on what we now know are problem areas (like the treatment of fuel moisture, charcoal remaining, water volume processed, averaging procedures, conceptual considerations and procedural relevance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Having that information would a) allow us to recalculate the old WBT’s in the Stove Inventory into a modern form, b) determine what the IWA tiers would be if they were set using current understanding, c) permit mathematically correct averaging of multiple tests to give and ‘average performance’, and d) permit the validation of tools that can be incorporated into an ISO Standard of stove testing methods.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>