<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Paul: <br><br>Thank you so much. I need to read more and digest this. You have wonderfully expressed rebellious thoughts, whatever your intent. <br><br>1. Please let us know if you can find this "50-stove" report. From your comment "until results are released, in this case a book," looks like there was a book. The two things I know are GACC's <a href="http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org/pages/about">Clean Cooking Catalog</a> with 351 stoves (seems like an ongoing work) and the <a href="http://berkeleyair.com/wp-content/publications/SPT_Inventory_Report_v3_0.pdf">Stove Performance Inventory Report</a> (or SPTI, BAMG for GACC 2012). This SPTI's Conclusions and Recommendations (p. 23), and Inventory Next Steps (p. 24) are quite remarkable. The question is, whose responsibility was it to follow up? If it was GACC, what have GACC done about it? <br><br>2. Is the D-Lab report an adequate "next step"? What you call "story behind the half-decade between 2003 and 2010" might not have been captured by the BAMG SPTI at the end of 2012. (I am not qualified to make any judgment about the evolution of WBT. All I say is that "fuel-free", "cook-free" boiling water makes my blood boil.) <br><br>-------------<br><br>Whoever "we" are, there seems to be a presumption that, following GACC vocabulary, there is a "stove sector" and that GACC Secretariat are leaders voicing this "stove sector". It is time to disabuse the readers of this List or the world at large that GACC speaks for anybody but itself, and that there is even a "stove sector". </div><div><br>And those of "us" who have concluded, at this stage, that stove testing is "Nothing at all like the realities in the kitchens." need to write up narratives of "realities in the kitchen" instead of D-Lab holy book. </div><div><br>The "stove-study community" needs to assert to GACC - via posts or open letters - that we are "moving away from those former practices," and that we are advocating that those former practices be abandoned publicly by GACC. <br><br>I trust GACC has the courage to at least acknowledge the dissatisfaction within the "stove-study community", and transmit the dissatisfaction to ISO TC-285. It is obligatory upon ISO to recognize persistent doubts about WBT (acknowledged in Fernando Manibog's paper in 1984 all the way to BAMG SPTI in October 2012) and all "fuel-free", "cook-free" stove performance testing and lab-created metrics. </div><div><br></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div>ANSI presentation at IWA (by Sally Seitz, cc'd here) on the ISO process emphasized the power of consensus: ""consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. "</div><div><br>Elise Owen of ANSI also said at IWA: "The ISO International Workshop Agreement (IWA) was identified as a mechanism t<u>o help codify an “interim” cookstove</u> standard." <br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><div>WBT was an interim protocoal for a <u>temporary rating system</u> adopted in Lima and the methods for IWA Tiers and specific numbers as well as WHO emission targets are <u>disputable and have no legal authority</u> behind them. <br><br>As for the TC 285 process, the Hague IWA that was review due in 2015 should begin immediately. And if an interim standard - one that is locally adaptable using reliable testing methods and ISO-certified test laboratories - cannot be issued for debate by the end of next month, an audit of the TC work over the past five years should also be initiated by the ISO senior management. <br><br>Pending re-authorization of the TC 285 calendar and any audits, it could begin looking into actual exposures from portable and in situ (built in) biomass stoves, and compare such to the WHO database on emissions and exposures at a community level. (Warning: WHO DOES NOT have any database and exposures at any community level. There is no use pretending that WHO is not fooling us.) <br><br>Science alone cannot render any usable standards for usable stoves. Efficiency and PM testing is fine, but there ought to be five other metrics, some of them not in the realm of physical sciences, not even social sciences. And the Tiers with some hourly target that purports to protect health must be dumped. I think public health modelers need to be brought in to justify their assumptions and methods.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, time for me to announce my rebellion against the glibness we - the global public - have been served over the last five years. <br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div><div>Nikhil<br> </div><div><br>On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Stovers,<br>
<br>
Nikhil wrote today 2 August 2017:
<blockquote type="cite"><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Let me quote a paper </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082610000311" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">"Fuel use and emissions
performance of fifty cooking stoves in the laboratory and
related benchmarks of performance</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> Energy for Sustainable Development,
Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages 161–171. </span><a id="gmail-m_3277979212990235723gmail-m_1797863452433115914gmail-m_5391486063193566494m_-347921276260181133gmail-m_2474870622504503967m_2727990310147322201gmail-ddDoi" class="gmail-m_3277979212990235723gmail-m_1797863452433115914gmail-m_5391486063193566494m_-347921276260181133gmail-m_2474870622504503967m_2727990310147322201gmail-S_C_ddDoi" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.06.002" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.<wbr>1016/j.esd.2010.06.002</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">.</span>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">.. The authors claim in the
Abstract: <br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Performance of 50 different stove designs was
investigated using the 2003 University of
California-Berkeley (UCB) revised Water Boiling Test (WBT)
Version 3.0 to compare the fuel use, carbon monoxide (CO)
and particulate matter (PM) emissions produced. While these
laboratory tests do not necessarily predict field
performance for actual cooking, t<u>he elimination of
variables such as fuel, tending, and moisture content,
helps to isolate and compare the technical properties of
stove design</u>.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
It stretches credulity that stove designs are tested on the basis
of excluding fuel, tending, and moisture content. This is
engineering madness. Standard fuel, standard pots, standard water,
standard field conditions (wind, humidity, temperature,
ventilation). Not cook. </blockquote>
Let's look at the timeline of that report:<br>
1. Publication in 2010. --- In modern-era cookstove chronology,
that is now rather old.<br>
<br>
2. Did you notice that the WBT version was from 2003? (that would
now be called "ancient"). There is a story behind the half-decade
between 2003 and 2010.<br>
<br>
3. From my memory (so others can correct me with documentation and
rememberances, if needed), the 50 stove study was conducted in about
2004 - 05 (maybe in to 2006??). It was conducted by Aprovecho,
with funding from EPA or PCIA (or ???). I saw and read a draft
(nearly final, I think) back around 2005 or 06. But there were
delays. Maybe questions about funds for pubishing?? Anyway, in
these types of reasearch with grant money, the project file is not
closed until results are released, in this case a book. By 2010,
the results were already old. I have a copy somewhere, filed away.
It has historical value to show the thinking of the early times
(2005, not 2010). And that is what Nikhil pointed out with his
comments about: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[Quote from 2010 report]: While these
laboratory tests do not necessarily predict field performance for
actual cooking, t<u>he elimination of variables such as fuel,
tending, and moisture content, helps to isolate and compare the
technical properties of stove design</u>.
<div><br>
</div>
[Nikhil's 2017 comment]: It stretches credulity that stove
designs are tested on the basis of excluding fuel, tending, and
moisture content. This is engineering madness. Standard fuel,
standard pots, standard water, standard field conditions (wind,
humidity, temperature, ventilation). Not cook. </blockquote>
Perhaps in 2017, we (the "stove-study community") are moving away
from those former practices. The testing proceedures today are
certainly not as rigid as in the past (even pellet fuels can be
allowed in testing <span class="gmail-m_3277979212990235723moz-smiley-s1"><span>:-)</span></span>),
but much of the old ways still remain. One example is the allowance
of "stove tending" to the extreme of the Rocket-stove practice of
spacing sawn wood that is advanced inch by inch (maybe cm by cm?) to
keep just the tips burning. Stove testers were (and are) trained
and then sit there for the entire test (with the stove conveniently
positioned at eye-level), nursing the fuel supply into the fire
zone. Nothing at all like the realities in the kitchens.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_3277979212990235723moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="gmail-m_3277979212990235723moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="gmail-m_3277979212990235723moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
</div></blockquote></div></div>