<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I concur with what Tami said.</p>
<p>As far as I remember, at the IWA meeting in the Hague, it was
repeated that we needed to reach an agreement before the end of
the workshop. What was conveyed was that progress on the protocols
depended on an agreement. Maybe it did, I don't know. But for sure
this idea was strongly conveyed. The discussions went strong until
the end, but didn't really reach their conclusions: so we decided
that we would all agree. That agreement made a first step: "there
are other valid protocols than the WBT". We had already come a
long way.<br>
</p>
<p>This is what often happens in diplomatic talks going over a few
days. The last day discussions go late in the night, and the
parties are so exhausted that they just want to sign anything,
even if not perfect, to go to sleep, and make progress later. Ours
was not late in the night, but people had to fly back home.<br>
</p>
<p>Ron, basically, the thought was that, it is either unanimous
agreement, it is either the 90 people agreeing, or nothing. So for
me and for a number of others, I think it was OK to say yes, only
at the condition that we would collectively work on assessing and
improving the testing protocols. Many, a bit like me, were not
strongly opinionated, and just wanted to see continued work and
progress.<br>
</p>
<p>It would not be true to say: "90 agreed, that means the 90 were
happy."</p>
<p>We all know that a sign at the end of a document does not mean
that all parties are completely happy. It means that we agreed on
a list of points. Maybe it is a compromise, maybe we met half way.
Often a first signed agreement calls for more, better agreements.</p>
<p>I am sure it was the same thing for the Lima consensus in 2011.
The agreement was not perfect, but it was made to keep things
moving forward.</p>
<p>I got the feeling there was the same state of mind at the ISO TC
285, from the members of the WG I interviewed at the end of 2016.
I was told that it was needed to agree on standards, to move
forward, as soon as possible. To be done with it.<br>
</p>
<p>So, back in February 2012, there were a lot of questions pending,
I agreed so we could keep working on these questions. I don't
regret that. Maybe that was the right thing to do. But, what
really matters, is what happened next. It's been 5 years, I
haven't seen answer to the questions, nor tentatives to answer the
questions, at least not on this List. It seems the ISO WG has
recently been making progress, to be seen.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Dear Frank,</p>
<p><i>"The WBT worked well for the research Dean and others did when
establishing gaps and air flow etc."</i></p>
<p>Maybe it did. Maybe other protocols would have allowed better
stoves to be developed, faster.</p>
<p><i>"It only became a problem when the intent was changed to
determine the ‘best’ stove for all uses and places."</i></p>
<p>This intent has always existed, still exists.<br>
</p>
<p><i>"The problem with ‘contextual’ studies ... </i><i>This will
work but not a workable solution to the problem. More years
about to be wasted."</i><br>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Contextual studies are both necessary, and a great
investment. They allow as well to find commonalities between
regions. There are stoves models that are appropriate across few
different geographic areas. I believe this is the case in India
for example, in Africa with charcoal stoves. Years are (have been)
wasted developing stoves in a lab without trying them, and without
improving them on the field.</p>
<div><i>"They are valid for the original intent (stove development)
but not for extended the usefulness to outside the lab where new
variables (uncontrolled) exist."</i><br>
I would agree with Crispin's answer.<br>
<br>
<i>"Thermodynamics will never work in these small combustion
chambers."</i><br>
Well, at one point, I think they'll have to. We'll have to
understand the inner workings, isolate trends and truths. And so
we can make progress on fundamental and applied stove science.<br>
<br>
<i>"eliminate them and they are answered."</i><br>
Eliminating questions when they are relevant is not a good idea.
Sweeping problems under the carpet does not make them go away. If
ignored, they'll come back to hit us with full force. It is our
responsability to work collectively on answering every question,
solving every problem.<br>
<br>
</div>
<p>Best,</p>
<p><br>
Xavier<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>