<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Dear Xavier,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks for your message and for reading the toolkit, I’m glad you were able to find it. I can’t imagine that anyone who has ever worked with Winrock or even read just the consumer preferences section of the toolkit
could get the impression that Winrock would recommend making stove selection decisions based only on *any* laboratory test.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">It seems you may have missed the “best practices” intro to that same section you quote that emphasizes the importance of local testing of stoves to ensure that they perform well with local foods and fuels. And
where we say that cookstoves that perform well in the lab won’t necessarily perform well in homes cooking specific local foods, or with nonstandard fuels. And where we highlight the importance of updating and reviewing testing protocols to ensure methods for
lab and field testing provide the best possible depiction of how each stove performs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If you read the whole toolkit and still have that impression, please give me a call, as that would be a truly problematic take-away, and I’d like to better understand your perspective. My direct line is 1-617-524-0466
or we can talk on skype. Even better—come to ETHOS at the end of January and we can discuss further; you’d be welcome to also present to the group on your ideas and suggestions for the sector. It’s a great place to have these kinds of discussions in-person.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Have you considered joining TC 285 to help inform the testing protocols our sector is developing through the consensus-based ISO process? Or the guidelines for how these voluntary standards get explained and
rolled out? Having more perspectives at the table makes for a better outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Elisa</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Xavier Brandao [mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 19, 2017 12:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Derby, Elisa <ederby@winrock.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> The WBT allows for comparison between tests and stoves, says Winrock<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">Winrock has recently published, on September 2017, on its website, a toolkit:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Winrock_Cookstove_final_reduced.pdf"><span lang="FR">https://www.winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Winrock_Cookstove_final_reduced.pdf</span></a>
<span lang="FR"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">The toolkit <i>« can be used by various stakeholders, but is primarily aimed at bringing USG staff and external project developers and implementers up-to-speed on significant developments in the cookstove sector in recent
years. »</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">According to the toolkit, p 20, <i>« Standardized laboratory testing protocols and metrics allow for replicability and comparability among tests and across stoves »,</i> and
<i>« The laboratory-based WBT is the most standardized of the three, and allows for comparison between stoves. »</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">It is unbelievable that Winrock still publishes this kind of claim, today. I am baffled. This has been time and time again proven wrong, and time and time again repeated, on this list and elsewhere that the WBT did not allow
to compare stoves. That it should not be used to select stoves, for programmatic or project purposes.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">Even the very rare supporters of the WBT (I am not sure who they are actually) agree about that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">I am not even talking about the proofs that the WBT is not even good to develop stoves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">In February 2017, a study by Lombardi and al. summarized the issues:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="FR">« Some of WBT critical issues remain unsolved. In particular, the main weakness of the WBT concerns its real-life relevance. […] Criticism about WBT concerns also the repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers
claiming that it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy. […] As a matter of fact, uncertainties related to temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region lead to high variability between test replicates.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="FR">A lot of debate has been made around formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency, which is often interpreted as the most immediate and distinctive stove performance parameter. Studies from Bailis et al. highlighted
how relying on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of high and low power cooking tasks among the target population, can lead to misleading interpretations. Furthermore, Zhang et al. and Jetter et al. questioned the scientific
meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at simmering. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="FR">Finally, some unsolved issues concerning statistical significance of data are worth mentioning. WBT 4.2.3 includes “Statistic Lessons for Performance Testing”. The appendix specifies that the minimum number of test replicates
for each model of stove should be three, […] Wang et al. investigated this topic using a simplified version of the WBT 3.0 and demonstrated that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that
even more replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in performance between two or more stoves. »<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">Yet, Winrock, like the GACC and D-Lab and their handbook, are again proving themselves to be the gravediggers of the already struggling project developers and implementers, rather than the much needed support they should
be, on matters of testing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">This is totally irresponsible from Winrock, and very concerning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">I put Elisa Derby in copy of this email.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">Elisa, I am very much looking forward to hear your views on that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><br>
Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><br>
Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="1" cellpadding="0" style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="58" style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="46" height="29" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D3624C.CDFEF0F0" alt="Image removed by sender."></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="473" style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Garanti sans virus.
</span><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<font style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br></font>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: black 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; mso-element: para-border-div"><font size=3><font style="FONT-FAMILY: ; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: ; FONT-SIZE: 11px"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: ; FONT-SIZE: 11px"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: ; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px">The information in this message, including any attachments, is the property of Winrock International (discloser), is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which this message is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged information. Therefore, the use or disclosure by a person who is not an intended recipient is prohibited. Use or distribution by the intended recipient is permitted if distribution is pursuant to an agreement with discloser authorizing distribution, or distribution is to those that have been previously approved by the discloser for sharing. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please notify the sender and immediately delete this message.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></font></font></font></font></font></font></DIV></body>
</html>