<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear Ron,</p>
<p>I believe we all have very nice resumes, we all have been doing
lots of stuff.</p>
<p>As much as I like resumes, what interest me more are the facts
and arguments presented in a discussion, regardless of what is on
the person's business card.</p>
<p><i>"Someone asked today what the water boiling test was supposed
to do. I like this 4-part list as a knowledgeable answer"</i></p>
<p>It seems the WBT is not able to inform us on performance. It is
certainly not telling us anything on affordability. It is not
contextual, and not telling me anything of what's gonna happen
when I ship the stove model from Oregon, U.S., to Tamil Nadu,
India. And yes, possibly the WBT works for a broad range of
technologies and fuel opportunities. Like any protocol. But not
for a broad range of cooking practices. What does a WBT tell me
about cooking rotis?</p>
<p><i>"</i><i><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span></i><i>I
ask all those seeking to kill the WBT" </i><br>
</p>
<p>I am not asking to kill the WBT, please re-read my call for
support. I am asking to put it aside, to "lock it", for now. To
admit it has flaws, to stop using and promoting it. Then, we can
fix it if it is fixable at all. It may take 10 years, it may never
happen.</p>
<p><i>"If we don’t do what is now more than 4 years in the making -
what is going to replace it?"</i></p>
<p>You might have missed what I posted earlier, you got all the
updated documents of the HTP protocol and CSI method here:</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing"
target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/<wbr>drive/folders/<wbr>0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?<wbr>usp=sharing</a></p>
<p>If you have any question about them, please do ask on this List.
Or write to Crispin or I (I will be relaying the questions
actually).</p>
<p>What it is you do with the WBT that you cannot do with HTP or
CSI? As I said, anyone is welcome to contribute with remarks or
other protocols. Crispin has also mentioned the Chinese, Indian,
AWBT protocols.</p>
<p>I actually wanted for some time to reply to your previous post,
after the ETHOS conference.<br>
</p>
<p>I have hard time believing that after reading the 10 studies
which links I recently posted, you found absolutely nothing wrong
with the WBT, nothing worrysome, nothing worth investigation.</p>
<p>You didn't answer my 3 questions to you, from my email of the
26/01:</p>
<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>
<p>You also said that like you, many (most?) people at the ETHOS
supported the WBT. Could you please give names? Who particularly
said the WBT was a good protocol? Why do they think it is a good
protocol? Could you please ask them to react on this List?</p>
<p>These past years, there has been on this List nothing but a
deafening silence from the WBT supporters.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Xavier<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>