<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" lang="en-US" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Xavier, Ron, et al:</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Your response to Ron is formidable. To my mind, a veritable tour de force. My pre-scientific intuition tells me that TLUD stoves producing charcoal are a separate category of stoves which should only be compared to other charcoal producing stoves. It's apples and oranges, apple sauce vs OJ or AJ . We don't advance the science of apple stoves by applying performance standards which are uniquely appropriate to orange stoves. Or do we? Historically the WBT emerged from Baldwin's efforts to conceptualize and measure the efficiency of a stove in terms of energy in and useful work outputs. The challenge here is meta stove science which takes us to epistemology - how we know what we claim to know. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If Ron wants to invent and promote and measure the efficiency of stoves producing copious amounts of biochar and Crispin wants to measure the energy in and work outputs of stoves that make little or no char, then we have no choice but to ask the stove users of the world to pick the type of stove they want. The appropriate stove test goes back to what kind of stove the costomer wants or traditionally knows about or can be motivated by advertisers, regulators, subsidizers, visionaries, etc to purchase and use. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I clever anthropologist acquaintance likes to say: "anything you can do I can do meta". So, what is the meta between Crispin and Ron and the GACC and Aprovecho and the many different types of biomass combustion and work producing devices?? It is simplifying and reasonable to begin with the cook/operator</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and purchaser in terms of the stove work desired (cooking experience and space heating), the preferred or available fuels, and the customers willingness to buy or fabricate the stove. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We stove researchers should start with these givens. Surely it is our job to devise tests of stove performance that assess stoves from the perspective of the primary customer's best interest and their preferred stove functionalities. Like the old Consumer's Digest (does it still exist?) we compare stove performance as objectively as possible in terms of a finite number of dimension of stove performance which customers value. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We may even get groups of stove users to rank (prioritize) different stove functions and also to rate stove performance relative to a baseline traditional stove, and arrive at an overall performance rating comparing end users perceptions and performance scores of particular stoves that are valid and predictive of stove buyer's choices in the market and also predictive of their propensity to actually use a given stove product. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If stove scientists are constructing formula that privilage particular stoves - char making stoves or rocket stoves - in an effort to promote their preferred stove products, functions, and testing protocols such actions create biases in favour of one or another type of stove into our common and eventually universal stove performance testing procedures. Surely it is illigitimate and ultimately counterproductive to rewrite the input output equation for calculating the energy efficiency of stoves in general to accommodate the pecularities of particular stoves. The char produced by the TLUD may have value but it is not permissible to retroactively deduct this output energy from the energy input into the stove! </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We must do our best not to permit our search for objective and universal tests of stove performance to become contaminated with "stovangelism" where we use stoves, subsidies, climate hysterias, and political fantasias to over power and rewrite the priorities, values, and world views of billions of impoverished stove users around the planet. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It is fine to emphasize the potential benefits of a stove that produces buckets of charcoal for sale or other uses. It is not fair to claim a higher efficiency for a char producing stove by subtracting the energy value of the char from the denominator....because it takes every bit of the original input to produce the char and also do the cooking and heating. The input of fuelwood does not shrink because some of it turns into charcoal that may or not be useful and valued output. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Surely we can discover meta testing procedures and inclusive formats for reporting fairly on the strengths of different types of stoves. Nikhil has been calling for the stover of the world to unite and create a common technical language of agreed upon terms , metrics, and testing protocols. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I recommend that the exponents of particular stoves and testing protocols huddle together and describe how different types of stoves are to be tested in all dimensions of stove performance in the lab and in the field. Once we have the TLUD, rocket, liquid fuel, coal fuel, etc stove test protocols, formulas, and technical terms available we will look for and find a unifying language of terms and operational tests.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">That's what I want!</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cecil the Cook</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br style="display:initial"></div> <div style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.</div> <table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><b>From: </b>Xavier Brandao</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:38 PM</div><div><b>To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; adam@instove.org</div><div><b>Reply To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking stoves</div><div><b>Cc: </b>ederby@winrock.org</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2017 agenda and logistics</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(186, 188, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><br><div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
<br><!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>