<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Stovers,  <br>
      <br>
      Because of a processing delay, many of you might not have read
      Cecil Cook's excellent comments about fixing the difficulties of
      the WBT and related problems.   I recommend that you read it
      (below).<br>
      <br>
      Cecil makes many good points and makes a suggestion for
      resolution.   But I want to stimulate the discussion with an
      alternative consideration.<br>
      <br>
      1.  The "collective body" of persons / experts / enthusiasts that
      is discussing the revisions of the WBT procedures seems to be hung
      up with distinct camps or points of view.  In that regard, I agree
      with Cecil that some new approach is needed.   And soon.<br>
      <br>
      2.  Cecil proposes that an independent review be conducted and (I
      might be incorrect) that the reviewer would essentially make the
      final decision (based on substantial inputs by all who are
      interested).<br>
      <br>
      3.  An alternative (just a suggestion) would be that the
      independent (and neutral) reviewer would be in charge of the
      leading the discussions, intending to get people to agree.   That
      is, that none of the current participants in the discussions be
      placed in charge of leading the efforts for resolution, keeping
      the discussions objective, impersonal, and scientific.  Somewhat
      of an arbitrator or moderator, but not trying for a compromise.  
      Trying for the best science.<br>
      <br>
      The reason for suggesting the moderator/arbitrator is in hopes
      that within our Stove Community we could reach some semblance of
      agreement, instead of letting an outside reviewer make the final
      decision.   If the split continues after the moderation effort,
      the decision making could then be turned over to the reviewer who
      would then essentially act as judge and jury.<br>
      <br>
      I think that use of an independent moderator/arbitrator would be
      faster and cost much less money. <br>
      <br>
      I remain flexible about how the solution could be accomplished.  
      But I and many others want some serious progress about this soon,
      not waiting on and on and on as meeting yield very little
      progress.<br>
      <br>
      Paul<br>
      <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  
Email:  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>   
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
      On 2/16/2015 3:18 PM, Cecil Cook wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+1hLhYfNd=9ncqzeYJUNRhGHP2sWr8USq9nhtUao0D3_6fr_g@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Dear
            Stovers,</span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Not sure
            what has caused time to skip beat here.  I just wrote and
            lost a very clever response to the present thread of
            discussion on the multiple
            short comings of the WBT which remarked the following: </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(1.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Science
            - even
            stove science - grows by fits and starts;</span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(2.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">science
            learns more
            from recognizing that <b>big mistakes</b> have
            inadvertently been made
            that it does from research that confirms well established
            scientific paradigms (see
            Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery for the
            usefulness of scientific
            failure)</span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br>
          </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(3.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">in
            science - even
            the science of biomass stoves - progress comes from the</span><br>
        </p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">retransmission
            of falsehood (falsification) by deductive chains of logic
            from the failed predictions back to the falsification of
            theories, metrics, and
            models because they generated mistaken predictions about
            stove performance (or
            such matters as planetary motion, climate warming and
            weirding, the effect of GMO
            's on human and animal health, race as a construct and its
            effect on IQ, and
            the Lamarkian notion that acquired characteristics can be
            inherited, etc.)</span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(4.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">we are
            fortunate
            that people like Ianto Evans, Larry Winiarski, Dean Still,
            Peter Scott,
            Nordica, Sam, and probably many others I do not know took
            the bull by the horns
            and bravely originated a preliminary set of principles for
            designing improved
            biomass burning stoves and also cobbled together a series of
            provisional efficiency
            and emission tests. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">These
            were the original Aprovecho stove pioneers who also founded
            the
            Rocket Stove movement which mercifully improved upon the
            earlier Lorena stove experiment
            that constructed thousands of high mass clay/sand ‘masonry’
            stoves which were
            soon discovered to be much less efficient than a well
            operated 3 stone fire.
            This group of appropriate technology oriented, back to the
            land hippies gradually
            became more technical and began to refine and apply the VITA
            WBT to measure and
            compare the efficiency of different kinds of simple biomass
            stoves. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">They put
            together a set of specifications and principles for
            designing,
            building and optimizing the Rocket Stove which became the
            prototype in the mind
            of the Aprovecho movement for all improved cookstoves
            anywhere in the world.  </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Finally,
            the Aprovecho-niks and communards were joined by university
            based engineers, physicists, chemists, and atmospheric
            scientists from UC
            Berkeley, and a wide spectrum of university based scientists
            and private sector
            professionals associated with the annual Ethos conference. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">This
            professional and hands on US based network has been busy
            over the
            past 15 years attempting to clearly specify metrics that
            measure the
            technological performance of biomass stoves. It has also
            pioneered the design
            and instrumentation of stove testing centers and the
            specification of observational
            protocols that correctly ‘opertionalize’ these metrics. 
            From the
            beginning, the main purpose was to discover simple tests
            that empirically
            assess the efficiency and emission performance of improved
            biomass stoves and also
            to make quantitative comparisons between improved stoves. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The
            rejection or lukewarm reception of many – perhaps most -
            improved
            stoves in many countries of the developing world over the
            years has forced
            European, American, Indian, African, Latin American, and
            Chinese designers and
            makers of improved stoves to gradually expand their horizons
            to investigate the
            roles played by all the other major factors, interests, and
            constituencies which
            significantly influence over the acceptance or rejection of
            new biomass stoves
            including: (i.) funding agents like USAID, the World Bank,
            and GIZ, (ii.) standard
            setting agencies like EPA and the WHO, (iii.) large scale
            industrial and village
            scale craft manufacturers, (iv.) the controllers of access
            to gathered or
            commercialized fuels from the nearby environments, and (v.)
            the socio-economic,
            cultural, and human factors involved in the
            institutionalization of  one or more dominant stove
            technologies and
            products in a particular market segment; these human factors
            are ultimately the
            most important determinants of user acceptance or rejection
            of improved stoves.
            The acceptance or rejection depends on the perceptions of
            the utility of a new
            stove within the household economy where the stove has
            multiple functions to
            perform: cooking the food eaten by the family, heating its
            home, earning income
            by providing heat to power home industry, purifying water,
            drying crops, providing
            light, and creating a social and spiritual center around
            which family life
            revolves.  </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Speaking
            as a science challenged social anthropologist I think that
            several things need to be acknowledged about the
            Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos (ABE)
            alliance. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(1.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">It has
            done a good
            job of promoting the Rocket Stove design around the world. </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(2.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">On the
            down side, its
            efforts to demystify the design of improved stoves and
            empower village and
            craft fabricators of simple low cost stoves, the ABE
            Alliance appears to have
            conflated improved stoves in general with the basic Rocket
            Stove. </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(3.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">This
            conflation of
            Rocket stoves with biomass stoves in general has
            unfortunately led to emission
            and efficiency metrics and testing procedures which perhaps
            unintentionally advantage
            the Rocket Stove and disadvantage all other types of stoves
            (e.g., the specification
            of 1 inch square pieces of oven dried spruce or pine as the
            test fuel that must
            be expertly fed into any stove being tested). 
            The reliance on metrics and test protocols which favour some
            stoves and
            disadvantage other stoves does not lead to stable or valid
            comparisons of the efficiency
            and emission performances of different types of stoves or
            even the same kind of
            stoves. </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(4.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The
            leadership role
            assumed by the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos Alliance in the US
            State Dept funded and
            EPA supported Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and the
            GACC’s adoption of
            the WBT metrics, protocols and instrumentation has
            complicated an already
            complex predicament. Because personal and institutional
            reputations are at risk,
            it is becoming increasingly difficult to radically change
            the WBT metrics, test
            protocols, and instruments without creating winners and
            losers. The GACC and
            big political players are in danger of exposure for
            prematurely funding big
            implementation programs without first settling the science
            of small biomass
            stove testing. </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(5.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Here is
            my proposal
            for salvaging the present ugly situation of stove scientists
            behaving badly in
            public: let all the stove scientists and stove testers who
            think they know how
            to test the efficiency and emissions of small cooking and
            heating stoves agree
            on an independent standard developing and setting
            organization like TUV
            Rheinland-USA (</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,102,33);background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><a
              moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.tuv.com/en/usa/home.jsp">www.<b>tuv</b>.com/en/usa/home.jsp</a>) 
          </span><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><span
              style="font-size:12pt">or some other respected science
              testing establishment in the world and ask them to review
              all the different metrics,
              testing protocols, equipment/instrumentation on offer. 
              The GACC probably has the funds needed to pay
              for such a comprehensive review. It can invite all the
              stove scientists and
              testers with skin in the game to form themselves into a
              small advisory body
              whose job is to ensure that no interested party or parties
              captures or
              dominates the review of existing test protocols and
              metrics. That means the proposed
              advisory group will have to consult openly about the rules
              that will govern the
              consultative, </span><span style="font-size:16px">re-conciliatory</span><span
              style="font-size:12pt"> and global culture and
              science creating process
              they will go through together.  </span></font></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 39.6pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(6.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">  </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I
            understand that
            the ISO process and the IWA’s are attempting to do what I am
            proposing we ask
            TUV Rheinland or another comparable science testing
            institution to do on behalf
            of the presently dysfunctional small stove community around
            the planet. Here is
            my contention: the ISO was and is premature because the
            small stove community
            is too divided by conflicting research styles and programs
            prioritizing the
            stove operator, family health, employment creation,
            environmental stability,
            energy sustainability, and decentralization and appropriate
            technology.  The suggested involvement of TUV Rheinland USA
            is to help a grumpy, preoccupied, and stressed out
            international stove
            community to speed up its integration around second
            generation metrics, stove
            testing protocols, lab procedures, and possibly even field
            tests. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">My
            interest here is
            to allow all stove scientists and hands-on stove innovators
            to give their
            testimony about: </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(i.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">           
            </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">what
            specific aspects of stove performance need to be observed,
            reduced
            to metrics,  quantified and compared, </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(ii.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">          
            </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">what
            testing protocols, methodologies, equipment, and </span></p>
        <p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">(iii.)<span
              style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
              New Roman'">         
            </span></span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">what
            field observations are required to predict both stove
            performance
            and probable  stove use in particular target communities? </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">In that
            way the Independent third party agency reviewing the WBT,
            the
            testimony of the partisans of particular approaches to
            testing and specific metrics,
            will get the benefit of all the years of good work done by
            stove scientists,
            manufacturers, trainers, vendors, lab testers, back yard
            innovators, etc.
            around the world. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">If we
            simply continue the low intensity stove testing wars fought
            at the
            World Bank, USAID, EPA, UC Berkeley, several national labs,
            the GACC, and in
            most of the different countries where stove testing is under
            development we
            will continue to develop backwards. It is not fair to our
            partners in the
            developing world because we are sewing confusion and
            conflict among our
            partisans and our enemies. </span><span
            style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">My
            goodness such conduct is not professional, even in post
            modern North America and
            Europe where nowadays it’s difficult to find a flesh and
            blood human being to talk to in
            the midst of cyber anarchy and inward facing crowds.</span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">And let
            us not forget dear Rumi, a Sufi poet who wrote in the 13<sup>th</sup>
            century:    </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            class=""><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">O</span></span><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">ut
            beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing,</span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br>
            <span
              style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">there
              is a field.
              I'll meet you there.</span><br>
            <br>
            <span
              style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">When
              the soul lies
              down in that grass,</span><br>
            <span
              style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">the
              world is too
              full to talk about.</span><br>
            <span
              style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">Ideas,
              language,
              even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.</span></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">Ask
            Rumi to help us find our way out of this mess
            we are creating. And do not forget what Walt Kelly’s
            philosophical opossum - Pogo - who lived in the Okefenokee
            swamp in my part of south Georgia as known to say when
            politics got out of hand:</span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">“We
            have met the enemy and he is us” or even
            better: “we are defeated by insurmountable opportunities”. </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">In
            search and service,</span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">CECook
          </span><span
            style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:12pt"> </span><br>
        </p>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>