<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:10pt;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">Hello All, </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">The week after ETHOS, I had the chance to attend the Stove Upgrade Seminar at Aprovecho. Getting to spend a great deal of time personally with many stovers whom I respect who have been doing the work longer than I’ve been alive, was humbling and insightful. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">I worked firsthand alongside them using the WBT, and had a chance to ask what must have been the most pedestrian questions: perlocutionary criticisms about replicability of the user’s input (are 3 or 7 test cycles sufficient?), about how to measure the use of accelerants to start fire (“is fire-starting fluid's fuel-value measured?”), how air quality might affect the test (“how does the equipment/method account for ambient PM?”), and about the differences between the WBT and the other tests for measuring stove performance. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">What I learned was that the WBT was designed primarily as a way to measure the impact of small design changes upon stove performance: a tweak here, a change there… i.e. "how does the new stove with change compare to the old stove without it?" My scientific formation is in biology—neither engineering, nor design—so I can’t speak to the more technical questions about the accuracy of the approach, the “denominator equation," the implications of char-creation on efficiency, or the statistical methods that would create stronger confidence in the outcomes of a test like this. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div><font face="verdana, geneva" size="2" style="">What I can say is that from my perspective, </font><i style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">comparing how two mostly similar stoves, in similar conditions, and with the same user, boil the same amount of water seems pretty sound as a basis for making certain decisions, </i><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">particularly with repetitions that reduce the uncertainty/variability</span><font face="verdana, geneva" size="2" style="">. I also understand the logic that local variables (different cooks, fuel, pots, foods cooked, etc.) in the CCT and KPT make results from these tests not comparable. So the WBT limits variables, and as a front-end test before distribution, allows for international comparison of stoves. It also levels the playing field somewhat, since it's far cheaper (particularly for early-stage folks) to afford a lab test than a field one. </font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">I don’t think that performance against the WBT (as the farthest along of several ISO standards that are in the works) will determine how the stove may be adopted, nor how much fuel it will save, but that was not the intention behind the WBT. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">What I learned from Dean and Miguel at Apro is that really, the Controlled Cooking Test and the Kitchen Performance Test are the real tests of impact, localized to a given context. However, decisions right now about stove inclusion in programs (most notably the UNHCR, GIZ, GACC and others) are being made on the basis of the WBT. While this is not ideal in terms of matching a stove with optimal impact to a given fuel, food, behavior or cultural context, it does ensure that some valid lab testing has been done at all. I recently read a publication authored by the leadership of a nonprofit (that dabbles in cookstoves) with an annual budget in the millions claiming that the <b style=""><u style="">20% to 30%</u></b> thermal efficiency typical of their <b style="">built-in-place brick and mortar</b> rocket stoves reduces fuel demand by up to 70% compared to a three-stone fire. This kind of oversimplification is certainly problematic when scientific looking terms and figures mask a lack of accountability. There is a great deal of ignorance out there, mine commingled with it…but I think that the WBT, for what it does, is not worth abandoning. I<span style="">t may be being applied outside of its ideal use (to compare the impact of iterative design change on stove performance), but for the moment, it seems to me that throwing the baby out with the bathwater—ditching the methodology that many in the sector have developed and come to tentative agreements on the use of—would be a mistake. </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">What I learned from Jim Jetter is that the process for discussing the standards is open, transparent, and is intense this year: a weekly conference call, and new members are invited to join and bring their perspectives to the table. That seems pretty transparent, and pretty admirable, given how many stakeholders have diverse interests in the outcome of the discussion, and it’s quite a labor to take on. But for anyone who wants a say in the process, and who has something to contribute (I do not count myself among the latter category)...there is a way to do so, and Jim encourages people to.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">I think the development of the right test for the right approach is as ongoing as stove design itself, and as Tami has pointed out, it must be done in steps, and with the courage to bring into the discussion, those people with strong opinions and valid criticisms. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">My thanks to all who have helped me understand the paradigm a little better, and to know that we’re not at the end of a process. The discussion does remind me of an XKCD cartoon (below)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><img src="webkit-fake-url://7f86a021-0002-4adb-96ff-0f1ec03413df/image.tiff" style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><img style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br style=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;">Adam Creighton</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, geneva; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="color: black; font-family: verdana; font-size: 10pt; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting<br>
the WBT<br>
From: "Philip Lloyd" <<a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>><br>
Date: Mon, February 20, 2017 12:09 pm<br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
<br>
<!--[if !mso]><style>
#wmQuoteWrapper v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style>
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Georgia; panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Garamond; panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper h1 {mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; font-weight:bold;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p {mso-style-priority:99; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoAcetate, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoAcetate, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.Heading1Char {mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char"; mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-link:"Heading 1"; font-family:"Cambria","serif"; color:#365F91; font-weight:bold;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
</style><div class="WordSection1"><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The paywall behind which this paper sits is a nuisance, but I commend <a href="https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/121554/3/2016_04_Lombardi.pdf">https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/121554/3/2016_04_Lombardi.pdf</a></span> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">as a useful substitute<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Prof Philip Lloyd<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Energy Institute, CPUT<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">SARETEC, Sachs Circle<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Bellville<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Tel 021 959 4323<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cell 083 441 5247<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PA Nadia 021 959 4330<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Stoves [<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 20, 2017 6:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> Francesco Lombardi<br><b>Cc:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear Francesco <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Congratulations on this testing opus. This must have taken your group a long time to produce. Most impressive. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I suggest that perhaps this can serve as an evaluation reference when considering the concepts and calculations that underlie any proposed methods. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There is another work 'in the works' which is that Cecil Cook will shortly be travelling to Sudan to work on his social anthropology methodology that underlies the CSI testing sequences. He didn't say anything to the Stoves group but that is the plan. Once documented as a social science protocol it will help define the key performance indicators for product evaluation. It is an integral part of the CSI protocol - the development of the contextual test that will be conducted. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">An example of this is the duties that will be measured in the Kyrgyzstan stove pilot. During discussions this week we agreed to include water warming on the stoves using three specific containers: a kettle containing 3 litres, a tall thin container of ablution water, 1.5 litres, and a bucket with 20 litres of water. These will be monitored parallel to the space heating and cooking functions. The reason for inclusions is that it is a desired and expected stove function, and because if the stove performs poorly, it will not find traction in the general community. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We conducted some site visits outside the city of Osh on the weekend gathering feedback and fuel consumption numbers. The test sequence, once agreed, will be communicated to the BST lab in Beijing where they will conduct the tests. This is an example of how a standard laboratory setup in a remote location can be used to evaluate a stove using site-specific performance targets. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Once codified Cecil's work will add to the work of Francesco and other creating a new foundation for the stove sector. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div><div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"><div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"><div><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Dear all,<br><br>I am pleased to inform you that we just published a new article that you may find extremely relevant to this discussion. The title is: "Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments". This is the link for the downlkoad: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X" id="LPlnk675897">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X</a><br><br>The paper, published in Biomass and Bioenergy, performs an analysis of strengths and weaknesses for each protocol based on defined indicators. Real-life relevance, repeatability and data evaluation are set as indicators for comparison. Based on the analysis, aternative solutions for design rating and statistical analysis are proposed and moreover we provide an outlook for the definition of a novel standard.<br><br>It is very important that the criticalities here identified are properly discussed and solved before the publication of any novel protocol/standard. Accordingly, we hope that you can contribute to share the results of this study as much as possible within the stove community.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Francesco Lombardi<o:p></o:p></span></div><div><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div id="Signature"><div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"><div name="divtagdefaultwrapper"><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Francesco Lombardi, Eng.<br>Researcher at Department of Energy<br>UNESCO Chair in Energy for Sustainable Development <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.unescochair-e4sd.polimi.it">www.unescochair-e4sd.polimi.it</a><br>Politecnico di Milano, via Lambruschini, 4 – 20156 – Milano<br>Mobile: +39 338 2749066<br>Office: +39 02 2399 3866</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="font-size:12pt;text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><hr size="2" width="98%" align="center"></span></div><div id="divRplyFwdMsg"><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Da:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <a target="_blank" href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a> <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> per conto di Traveller <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com">miata98@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Inviato:</b> giovedì 16 febbraio 2017 10.26<br><b>A:</b> Cecil Cook<br><b>Cc:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Crispin Pembert-Pigott; Francesco Lombardi; Fabio Riva; Samer Abdelnour; Xavier Brandao; Harold Annegarn; Zhou Yuguang; Frank Shields<br><b>Oggetto:</b> Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">[First a nod of gratitude to Frank - setting tasks is a beginning of "service standard". I don't believe a uniform service standard be pre-set or that such a standard can remain valid in practice. Foods change. Operating practices change. Setting fuel quality in the name of a wood is beyond ludicrous. The entire history of "stove catalog" is dubious, pardon me if I am the first one to say so. Emission tests for efficiency or emission rates have no consistency in terms of method, duration, input and output data. Just go read Kirk Smith's chapter on health in Global Energy Assessment circa 2012/3. Setting targets and Tiers in advance is putting a cart's front to the horse's head. The rot in wide and deep, much more than WBT.] <o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>Now Cecil:<br><br>As the usual naysayer - not to say a vicious dog who lunges most at friends and ignores foes - let me doubt you: <o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">"</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I am pretty certain I can design a survey methodology that will predict demand for competing stoves with out concerning myself with efficiency and emission performance. And that my socio-cultural and user satisfaction tests of stove performance will predict customer response to competing improved stoves better than testing protocols which give efficiency and emission performance more weight than culture centered parameters of stove performance. Emission and efficiency performance do not "trump" user friendly operational variables and culturally mandated "negotiable" stove performance variables?</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>The problem is one of trust. <br><br>Not my trust in your ability to design such a survey methodology but whether GACC - the leader of us all, the champion of women and the planet (or UNF and EPA, WHO and our own Narendrabhai's oil companies) - will get 100 such surveys done, in 20 countries, in a year, after spending millions on Dahlberg, Accenture, and usual suspects. (ESMAP might, and should. WHO should, if it mounts a serious effort on air, water, and waste management for public health. What it has done on Household Fuels is enough of a shame to rank in the annals of UN misdeeds.)<br><br>And even ESMAP may have doubts about whether the cooks will talk or whether national governments - the finance ministers - will listen. "Stovers" lost credibility a long time ago and recent attacks from GACC - pressing for exclusive, permanent transition to clean fuels and Tier 4 stoves, no "stacking" - or this curious, dubious adherence to WBTs have made it worse. <br><br>I wonder how much trust and credibility have been eroded just in the past year. No problem. A new learning has started, as the GACC CEO impressed upon the audience at George Washington University last month. She seems to be trying hard. It's time to take stock and get our heads out of the fireboxes and peer-reviewed papers, write off DfID's grandiose dreams for its grants to Teri or UN Foundation, get serious rather than protect reputations and careers. <br><br>Why should a busy woman bother to talk to an ethnographer or answer your survey questions? Haven't hoards of "stakeholders" been bored with meals at imperial hotels and video conferences about climate and sexual violence? Haven't tens of millions of girls known such violence first hand, and are they going to be persuaded that LPG stoves or Tier 4 will protect their girls from sexual violence in 2030? Haven't a billion "improved woodstoves" been trashed in the dustbin of history? Haven't MIT/Harvard (e)cons made a fool of us all? Hasn't India's search for Advanced Biomass Stoves gone "Up in Smoke"? Aren't Haitian, Nigerian, Kenyan, Ghanaian, Guatemalan, Congolese, Asian women and children dying prematurely at the rate of one a minute? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I urge everybody to drop the pretense of science and models and stand intellectually naked in fresh air at the ocean of humanity. "We" know zilch. Recite - "What do I know? How do I know? What is the service standard? How are 50 billion meals, snacks, and beverages made and served every day, and how will the 2 trillion such servings of 2020 look different from the 1 trillion such of 1960?<br><br>Do we know what questions to ask? Some the respondents too may not have thought of. We may need to observe the rhythms of cooking and foods, and the total time, labor, and money budgets in the cook's family over a generation. Because everything about cooking and eating has changed and keeps changing except stovers. <br><br>Cooking is a language. Food is an identity. Biomass cost, quality, and availability is a complex ecosystem of humanity, botany, agronomics, forestry, climate, machinery. <br><br>I will volunteer 1,000 hours for anybody who simplifies this mess of so-called science and comes up with good definitions, performance metrics, and testing methods for objective and subjective criteria. <br><br>Whose meals are being cooked, I wish I knew. WHO, EPA, and NIH, to count a few. <br><br>I agree with Xavier -- first halt the WBT use by GACC. There is zero legal basis for WBT in reference to cookstoves worldwide. I doubt it is a cornerstone for solid fuel cookstoves in the US, but will be happy to be corrected. EPA has no competence to set metrics and testing protocols for residential cookstoves in the US, just NSPS for woodstoves for residential heating, even which it cannot implement after 30 years. We should stir the pot at WHO; anybody game?<br><br>N<br clear="all"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"><br>--------- </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">(India +91) 909 995 2080<br><i> </i></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:14 AM, <<a href="mailto:cec1863@gmail.com" target="_blank">cec1863@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear fellow pyromaniacs,<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It looks like scales are falling from the eyes of stove testers and learning is beginning to take place on the stove list. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Let our consulting continue from a new posture of learning until we get to what CPP called for long ago: a suite of stove testing metrics which are selected from a tool box to discover the most culturally appropriate metrics and methods for testing stove performance in situ.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Come to think of it....why not ask ethnographers to talk to representative samples of targeted stove users in a region, city or country for long enough to identify the "natural" groups of stove users....and then ask representatives of these different groups to identify their stove performance preferences which together describe their collective idea of an ideal household cooking stove or an ideal work/ food processing/party stove or an agricultural or rural stove or an ideal multi-use stove.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The fuel use characteristics will be one the main dimensions of assessment. How much fuel to perform known tasks??<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">With these abstract ideal characterizations in hand and mind, what can the stove designers and fabricators come up with?? We then assess the performance of candidate stoves against those functions which stove users/buyers/<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">makers/sellers/funders agree are ideal! The user's preferences will not be exact but it will predict stove purchase and use behavior!<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All the efficiency and emission concerns which carry the bureaucratic interests of WB, USAID, WHO, EPA, and GACC - targeting macro climate, human health, and environmental impacts (saving tree cover) - are added into the evaluation matrix as nice to have beneficial impacts .....but I can assure you the end users of cook stoves will put emissions and efficiency toward the bottom of their list of highly desired dimensions of stove performance. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It will be the economics of purchased fuels in urban areas and the hard work of gathering fuel wood in rural communities for biomass stoves that will strengthen demand for improved biomass stoves that substantially reduce fuel wood or charcoal use.......but there are many other far more important stove performance variables that have more impact upon costomer demand and use rates than the emissions and efficiency performance of competing stoves. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I am pretty certain I can design a survey methodology that will predict demand for competing stoves with out concerning myself with efficiency and emission performance. And that my socio-cultural and user satisfaction tests of stove performance will predict customer response to competing improved stoves better than testing protocols which give efficiency and emission performance more weight than culture centered parameters of stove performance. Emission and efficiency performance do not "trump" user friendly operational variables and culturally mandated "negotiable" stove performance variables?<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In search,<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cecil "the anthropologist" Cook<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;background:white;border-spacing:0px"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;font-size:initial;text-align:initial"><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Frank Shields<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Sent: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Monday, February 13, 2017 1:45 PM<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Reply To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Cc: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Francesco Lombardi; Fabio Riva<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Subject: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Dear Fabio and Stovers <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">The problems with the WBT:<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">1) The fuel needs be characterized by its chemical and physical properties - NOT as identification as to Name of the type of wood. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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”. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Frank<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">Dear Xavier,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">Thank 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. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">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.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">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: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">“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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F3864">à</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864"> 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).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">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. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">I hope it could be clearer now. <u>I would be grateful if you could forward this message also to Ron and the bioenergy list</u>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">Thanks again for the passion and the effort you put for the testing community. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">Best regards,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#1F3864">Fabio"<br></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>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><br>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">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></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">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></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_-5453071382229138889m_-6620732239972475305_originalContent"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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><br>I remind you that you can support the initiative here: <a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a><br>And see other protocols, the HTP and CSI, here: <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing</a><br><br>Looking forward to your comments.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Frank<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Frank Shields<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Gabilan Laboratory<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Keith Day Company, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">1091 Madison Lane<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Salinas, CA 93907<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="tel:(831)%20246-0417" target="_blank">(831) 246-0417</a> cell<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="tel:(831)%20771-0126" target="_blank">(831) 771-0126</a> office<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:fShields@keithdaycompany.com" target="_blank">fShields@keithdaycompany.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><hr>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org</a>/<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>