<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>Dear Fabio and Stovers </div><div><br class=""></div><div>I have criticized the WBT in the past but after looking at the new directions that is being taken the WBT looks better and better. It does need some changes. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>The problems with the WBT:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1) The fuel needs be characterized by its chemical and physical properties - NOT as identification as to Name of the type of wood. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>2) We need to remove any calculations regarding to moisture and attempt to normalize the energy value back to dry weight basis. Before that can be done there need be proof that it is a linear fit - very unlikely with this type of system. We can only report ‘with a moisture of 10% this happens” or "with a moisture of 20% this happens”. </div><div>2b) There are many energy waste like sides of the combustion chamber, gaps too wide, pot bottom placed to high or low etc. These are considered the same as moisture - something to be optimized and understood. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>3) It needs be understood that the WBT is only an outline for tests that need be done. That is the Task here is boiling water. Using this outline we need to establish different Tasks. Could be; Char making, cooking beans, grill cooking, heating a house, creating light - all types of Tasks. For all we need the same layout.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Regards</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Frank</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="MsoNormal">"<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">Dear Xavier,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class=""><o:p class="">T</o:p></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">hank you very much for having cited our paper in
the discussion. Please, consider this recommendation for the
next citations: we do not actually critic the WBT per se, but
the way through which the practitioners and the literature
perform the WBT and report the results. Indeed, we are perfectly
aware that the WBT has many drawbacks and unresolved issues, but
we are still trying to support this in a scientific way. <o:p class=""></o:p></span>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">With our article “Fuzzy interval propagation of
uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and
traditional three–stone fire cookstoves" we demonstrated a
different problem: so far, the literature reports mainly data
coming from an average of few replicates that can lead to
misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’ performance if the
uncertainties are not considered. The final goal of the article
is therefore making people aware of the possible errors and
misinterpretations when they do not perform accurate statistical
data processing.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">Therefore, the sentence that you have highlighted
in the forwarded email should not be interpreted as “the WBT
itself has epistemic uncertainties that may lead to incorrect
ICS’s performance evaluation”, because it is not actually the
result of the work. Rather, the main outcome and result is this:
<o:p class=""></o:p></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">“IF you do not consider the WBTs uncertainties
(viz. the uncertainties related to lab replicates performed with
the WBT) when you report and analyse data </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">à</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class=""> THEN you might misinterpret the real ICSs’
performance”. So, we are not criticizing the “WBT uncertainties”
per se, because it is normal to have uncertainties when you
perform a lab measures (they are too many in the WBT, true, and
they must be urgently limited! but it is not the point of the
article).<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">This conclusion can be applied to all the protocols
that have intrinsic uncertainties. The reason why we have
considered only the WBT-based tests is because it is the most
adopted protocol in the literature and there are many data
available.<o:p class=""></o:p></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">I hope it could be clearer now.
<u class="">I would be grateful if you could forward this message also to
Ron and the bioenergy list</u>.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="">Thanks again for the passion and the effort you put
for the testing community.
<o:p class=""></o:p></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" class="">Best
regards,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" class="">Fabio"<br class="">
</span><br class="">
It is really great to have some insight from them. As I was replying
to Fabio, I don't know if it is at all possible to "fix" the WBT.
And doing this fixing, if it is at all possible, will take a lot of
time. Researchers and testers are very busy with other things, and
funders/the GACC/project implementers want to act now.<br class="">
<br class="">
Let's be a bit realistic for one second. If nothing is done, testers
will keep using the WBT, and project implementers being project
implementers, they WILL poorly interpret the results. We all know
how it works in international development projects. Some projects
are planned very well and run very smoothly, but let's admit that
more often than not, nothing really goes according to the plan.<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F3864;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" class=""></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph">Testers
and project leaders will hastily test the stoves with a limited
number of iterations because they are already late on the project
planning, or they have limited human resources or funds, not the
right equipment, or the testing consultant is in the country for a
short amount of time. They will think it is good enough. They will
take hasty decisions, and start projects based on very thin
evidence. This is unfortunately how it happens all the time. It's
like saying the the project implementers: here is a car but the
brakes are not working well, don't drive too fast with it.
Misinterpretations and misuse of the results will be done, because
the WBT is so easy to misuse. A very solid protocol is what we
need. We need a great tool, a fool-proof tool, a tool we can rely
on.<o:p class=""></o:p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph">Another
point is that more than a few people have been trying to fix the
WBT for long time, maybe 10 years or more. Maybe since it was
invented, in 1987? Can it be fixed at all? Even "improved", even
with a large number of test iterations, can the WBT give any
satisfactory results leading to good decisions?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph">But more
importantly, even with statistical data processing, 3 big issues
remain with the WBT. Can they be solved at all? Fabio Riva and
Francesco Lombardi admit these 3 issues still remain.<br class="">
</p>
They are not criticizing the WBT per se, in their paper. But I, and
many others, are. Based on their findings, we are criticizing the
WBT, because the WBT allows for easy misinterpretation, the WBT
allows large mistakes to be made. Because in international
development projects, and especially in stove projects, it is so
easy to make bad decisions. <br class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph">Often,
researchers and scientists don't take position, because it is,
they think, not their job. Then others in the stove sector have
the responsibility to take a position, and make a choice. I
believe their researches allow us to take that position, and to
ask for the promotion of the WBT to be stopped.<o:p class=""></o:p></p>
The wisest step, in my opinion, remains to stop using this protocol,
until it is fixed or we definitely move to a better one.<br class="">
<br class="">
I remind you that you can support the initiative here: <a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a><br class="">
And see other protocols, the HTP and CSI, here: <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing" target="_blank" class=""> https://drive.google.com/<wbr class="">drive/folders/<wbr class="">0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?<wbr class="">usp=sharing</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Looking forward to your comments.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best,<br class="">
<br class="">
Xavier<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">
<div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Frank</div><div class="">Frank Shields</div><div class="">Gabilan Laboratory</div><div class="">Keith Day Company, Inc.</div><div class="">1091 Madison Lane</div><div class="">Salinas, CA 93907</div><div class="">(831) 246-0417 cell</div><div class="">(831) 771-0126 office</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:fShields@keithdaycompany.com" class="">fShields@keithdaycompany.com</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" class="">franke@cruzio.com</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>