<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Crispin,<br>
<br>
I did not know it was known the equipment from Aprovecho was
having issues.<br>
Maybe this is why there was a lot of problems with the PEMS
calibration at Prakti.<br>
I'll check with the guys at Prakti and see what's the update on
that.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Xavier<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/19/17 15:50, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM5PR2201MB149933BFD53195DE7BC0433BB15F0@DM5PR2201MB1499.namprd22.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Slate Pro';">"For
$3,000 ARC will test your cook stove in our Oregon lab and
provide an ISO certificate of Tier performance ratings."</span></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);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Slate Pro';"><br>
</span></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);">
To my knowledge ARC is not an ISO certified lab. They are not
empowered to issue 'an ISO certificate' of any kind. </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);">
The only lab I know for sure that is testing domestic stoves in
a developing country that is ISO certified is the SEET Lab in
Ulaanbaatar. The certificate is for ISO 17025, something
achieved shortly after the lab director and manager both
received their PhD's in stove testing. </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);">
The SEET Lab is therefore able to conduct tests (with any
protocol) and issue an 'ISO' related certificate of
performance. </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);">
There is no set of ISO tiers for cooking stoves because there is
no ISO standard (yet).</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);">
To obtain ISO 17025 certification the lab is required to
replicate the results of another qualified lab (plus a lot of
other things). As is now widely know, labs using the WBT have
been unable to replicate their own work within the requirements
of the IWA 2012:11, let alone the WBT results of another lab.
The first reason for this is the WBT produces inherently
uncertain outputs because of conceptual errors leading to
improper calculations of metrics. That is the reason the GACC
should disavow it. </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);">
The GACC has been giving LEMS equipment to RKTCs funded by
earmarked grants from Shell. Todd reported the persistent
problems with that equipments when he had to deal with them. My
experience is with LEMS not PEMS, so I can't comment. I do know
that Aprovecho, GACC, CSU, the EPA and Berkeley are aware of a
review of that equipment which concluded that it cannot place a
stove on a benchmark above tier 3.5, were it to exist, due to
sensitivity and accuracy limitations. That is independent of the
WBT protocol issues. </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);">
The implications of this are obvious. How can one lab replicate
the result of a tier 4 stove if both are using equipment that
cannot do it confidently in the first place.
</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);">
So this issue of testing and rating and certificates has some
issues with both smoke and mirrors.
</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);">
Regards </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);">
Crispin </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 id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><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.
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html"
target="_BLANK">http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html</a>
</li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-stove-testing-update-release-of-water-boiling-test-protocol-4-2-3.html"
target="_BLANK">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>
<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>
<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 type="cite">
<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>
<br>
<!--end of _originalContent --></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>