<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sorry, the previous email was sent by
mistake!<br>
Here's the full email.<br>
<br>
Dear Nikhil,<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li> I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who
did what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was
among the parties who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement
at the IWA meeting. In the agreement, the writers wrote the
sentence: "the WBT is not the only valid protocol". I don't
know who said the WBT was valid in the first place. It has
never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we were given this
agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most often
communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that
would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use,
and quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols,
with the CCT and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing
and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But
testers usually don't do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too
many efforts to organize and it takes too much time. I believe
it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I believe the GACC promoted
also other protocols.</li>
<ul>
<li>The abstract Tom sent us is really interesting on how the
WBT is commonly viewed: "<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">as
per the world standard protocol WBT 4.2.3"</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>I think the GACC was supporting and promoting the updating
of the WBT:</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html">http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html</a></li>
<li><a
href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-stove-testing-update-release-of-water-boiling-test-protocol-4-2-3.html">http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-stove-testing-update-release-of-water-boiling-test-protocol-4-2-3.html</a></li>
<li>It is said here: "The Alliance and partners have been
working over the last few months to finalize updates to
the Water Boiling Test (WBT) to address comments from a
public comment period on the WBT 4.1.2."</li>
<li>Was there the same support for development of other
protocols?</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<li>I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho
equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of
other supplier of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?</li>
</ol>
Another point: some people think the WBT is still good as a tool
to develop stoves. I don't believe that is the case, and
additionally I would like to remind everyone that the WBT has been
used for years, and is still used to <u>certify</u> stoves, not
only to help the first phases of their development. The WBT would
say if a stove is clean or not, if it's good or not, regardless of
the fuel and regardless of the cultural context.<br>
The website of the Aprovecho Research Center says:<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>"For $3,000 ARC will test your cook stove in our Oregon lab and
provide an ISO certificate of Tier performance ratings. The same
tests results can be submitted to the Gold Standard as part of
the carbon credit requirements."</p>
<p>I didn't know we could get ISO certificates for a stove tested.<br>
</p>
As I said, what is the past is the past. What counts is what the
GACC and us all do from now on.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Xavier<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/19/17 14:00, Xavier Brandao wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:95d92f70-3a88-1ca9-7553-80c1571e0cc8@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Nikhil,<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who
did what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was
among the parties who was, I believe, pushing for an
agreement at the IWA meeting. In the agreement, the writers
wrote the sentence: "the WBT is not the only valid
protocol". I don't know who said the WBT was valid in the
first place. It has never been reviewed, as far as I know.
But we were given this agreement to agree upon. I think the
GACC has most often communicated about the WBT than other
protocols, but that would be understandable, the WBT is
quite convenient to use, and quite easy to learn. It was one
of the main protocols, with the CCT and KPT, that was taught
to the Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an
initiative of the GACC. But testers usually don't do so many
CCTs, it is too costly, too many efforts to organize and it
takes too much time. I believe it was mostly the VITA WBT,
but I believe the GACC promoted also other protocols.</li>
<li>I think the GACC was supporting the updating of the WBT:<br>
</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the
Aprovecho equipment was often the only suggested option, I
don't know of other suppliers of testing equipment. Maybe
the Setar?<br>
</li>
</ol>
Another<br>
As I said, what is the past is the past. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>