<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Ron,<br>
<br>
There are a lot of points of discussion.<br>
Some of the questions are also addressed to me, forgive me and let
me know if I don't answer all the questions you had for me.<br>
<br>
<div class=""><i><font color="#3366ff">Can you (anyone) report on
how well the WBT has supported your own internal testing.
Can you think of any approach better than heating/boiling
water to come up with fuel consumption comparisons between
stoves?</font></i></div>
The Heterogeneous Testing Protocol. From our testing team at
Prakti, it is a flexible protocol, easy to use and it can perform
any cooking task.<br>
<br>
<b class=""><i>I would also note that if the three (?) tests are
very different, this could indicate a problem with the stove -
not the test or testers.</i><br>
</b><span class="">I don't see how a stove model who seem to be
mass-produced, each unit being exactly the same, can give 3 very
different test results.</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class="">See the picture here:</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.primestoves.com/img/manufacturing/small-03.jpg">www.primestoves.com/img/manufacturing/small-03.jpg</a><br>
</span><br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><b
class="">[RWL: Xavier seems unconcerned about the main issue
(the “denominator equation”) separating Crispin and myself - and
his reason for unhappiness there is still a mystery. I still do
not understand any detail of Xavier’s concerns - and have
earlier responded on each of about 7 cites he sent me.<br>
</b><span class="">I am not unconcerned. As I said, I think the
denominator equation is an important question, and it is good
that you are discussing it with Crispin. There is progress, I
believe, in the discussion.<br>
Since I am not a scientist, there is not much I can do or bring
to that discussion. There are other important questions being
discussed on this list, about health impact, fuels, TLUDs, and
many other subjects. I am happy to see them take place, but I
cannot contribute much.<br>
Now, do I think the various issues with the WBT are far more
important then the denominator equation question? Yes I do.<br>
On the topic of whether or not we should keep the WBT, knowing
of all these issues, I believe I can contribute. Because this
discussion is important to project implementers, business
managers, decision-makers. People like Vahid and Camilla depend
directly on the testing protocols in place to run their business
successfully.<br>
<br>
</span><b class="">I still do not understand any detail of
Xavier’s concerns<br>
</b><span class="">I thought I was clear, but maybe I didn't
express myself very clearly.</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class="">To me, it is very simple.<br>
There is a growing number of practitioners complaining about the
variability with WBT results.<br>
There is a growing number of studies pointing at intrinsic flaws
inside the WBT protocols, both on metrics and repeatability. The
studies tell that it is impossible to know really how a stove
performs, because of the margin of error.<br>
When I make a stove, I want to know if it is performant. I,
unfortunately, have to test it for that. A testing protocol
which results are as uncertain as the lottery is of no use to
me.<br>
How could I not be concerned?<br>
<br>
This, below, this is what concerns me:<br>
</span><span class="">Long version:</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class="">" <span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman"; color:black">However, different authors have been
raising doubts about the consistency of WBT results, focusing
in particular on three issues: (i) L’Orange et al. </span><span
style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 128, 174);">[6] </span><span
style="font-size: 12pt; color: black;">highlighted the role of
thermodynamic uncertainties (viz. variable steam production
and boiling point determination) on results repeatability;
(ii) Zhang et al. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; color:
rgb(0, 128, 174);">[7] </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">raised questions about the rationale of some
calculations and about metrics terminology; (iii) finally,
Wang et al. </span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:#0080AE">[8] </span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black">criticised the statistical approach
recommended by this standardised laboratory-based test to
evaluate, communicate and compare performances and emissions
of tested stoves, i.e. using the arithmetic average of three
replicate tests."<o:p></o:p></span> </span><br>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black;"><o:p>"</o:p></span><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">The results suggest how considering
only the mean values of the outputs of the WBT and neglecting
intrinsic uncertainties of the results may lead to make large
errors and misinterpretations regarding the ICSs’ performance.
Indeed, for all the three Classes analysed, at 90% degree of
confidence, the percentage of ‘‘improved” stoves obtained by
considering the mean values of the WBT is among 3 and 6 times
higher than the percentage resulted from this analysis at least.
At 99% confidence level, only 15% of all the supposed
‘‘improved” stoves emerged as real ICSs at most. When enough
statistical information is provided from WBT results, only the
Stove with fan model of cookstoves seemed to reveal real
improvements with a probability greater than 93%. This work
shows how neglecting the epistemic statistical uncertainties
originated from WBTs – as done by a large portion of the
literature, which reports results from few lab-tests replicates
without sufficient statistical information – might lead to
misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’ performance, with potential
negative impact on beneficiaries."</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">The short version is enough to feel
very concerned: "</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">This work shows how neglecting the
epistemic statistical uncertainties originated from WBTs – as
done by a large portion of the literature, which reports
results from few lab-tests replicates without sufficient
statistical information – might lead to misinterpreted
evaluations of ICSs’ performance, with potential negative
impact on beneficiaries.</span>"<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span><span class="">I
haven't seen your answer to the critiques raised by the studies.</span><br>
<span class=""></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; color:
black;">Ron, maybe you are able to answer the many questions
all these authors are raising in their researches, so I
would like to re-ask you these questions:</span></span></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; color:
black;"></span></span></span>
<ul>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">do you contest the role of thermodynamic
uncertainties (viz. variable steam production and
boiling point determination) on results repeatability</span></span>?
Can you ensure there are no uncertainties? Of if there are,
can you ensure they have no effect on results repeatability?
How?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">do you have an answer to the questions
about the rationale of some calculations</span></span>
raised by Zhang et al.?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black">do you support the statistical
approach recommended by this standardised
laboratory-based test to evaluate, communicate and
compare performances and emissions of tested stoves,
i.e. using the arithmetic average of three replicate
tests? How do you guarantee this statistical approach
ensure good comparison of stove performances?</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<span class="">I don't need to be a scientist myself, to
understand there is something wrong when I hear these
researchers sounding the alarm(s).</span><br>
<span class="">When you are an administrator running a hospital,
and both researchers and patients tell you that one drug is
harmful, and you hear nothing from the supporters of that drug,
I believe your role is to listen to the alarms and stop
distributing the drug. You don't need to become a chemist
yourself, get a PhD and understand everything about the inner
workings of the drug to make a decision.</span><br>
<span class="">This is the precautionary principle.</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class=""><span class="">The GACC is
the closest we have from an administrator.</span></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""></span>There's a song which says:
"inaction is a weapon of mass destruction".</span><br>
<span class=""></span><br>
<span class="">Best,</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class=""><br>
Xavier<br>
</span><b class=""></b></div>
</body>
</html>