<div dir="ltr">Crispin:<br><br>Thank you so much. You know I don't give a hoot whether the efficiency number is correct, or for that matter even the PM2.5 number, unless the fuel is fixed and the test is according to local cooking and fuel use practices. <br><br>Permit me another observation: The decision to split 19867 into two parts and call one a "standard" but keep that label from the second, has immediate cosmetic consequences and may have deeper political and practical consequence.<br><br>1. There is no telling when DIS 19867-1 will be turned into a final standard and when a DIS 19867-2 will be released. Essentially the TC-285 chairs and the liaison members get away with a farce that was DIS 19867-1 and postpone anything useful for actual designers and promoters for however many more years it takes. <br><br>2. I request you to look at my comments on DIS 19867-1 and give me your views on them - in particular, my recommendation to a hypothetical person responsible for stove standards and stove policy in a developing country that DIS 19867-1 be rejected and the entire apparatus of TC-285 results be reviewed and acted upon together. <br><br>If you wish, I can provide my detailed comments on DIS 19867-1 including technical matters of the draft "standard test protocol". In short, this draft "standard test protocol" is regurgitation of the earlier monkeying around with boiling water; whether it is called WBT of anything else is beside the point. <br><br>The political benefit is to the lead country in this exercise, the US, and its contractors, namely GACC and ANSI (Seitz cc'd here). They may claim - if they wished - that the issuance of DIS 19867-1 and expected final standard version iis somehow an "achievement", while the practical effect is simply that a milestone has been reached where the WBT in some other dress and makeup is made the "standard test protocol".<br><br>And the chairs and the liaison members - including GERES - can satisfy themselves that they have won over everybody who dared challenge boiling water, no matter how useless boiling water is. (Put another way, it is the metrics of boiling water tests that have had no discernible,demonstrable impact on the claimed objectives as far as five billion people go. Three billion now, dying at the rate of 25 million a year and being born at the rate of some 40-50 million a year.) <br><br>This is deceit, but then I don't expect otherwise from lawless adventurers. I cannot tell what makes these liaison members relevant "stakeholders" and whether GACC, GERES, and WHO are inherently compromised actors. (They don't have a vote,but they should have no role in participation unless the proceedings were in the open. I have yet to see any GACC experience in technical aspects of stove design except that in the context of the MIT D-Lab cookbook they engineered, again to anoint WBT and ARC as the go-to protocol and go-to testers respectively. As for WHO, the less said the better. Its interference in the name of "indoor air quality" is simply ridiculous; WHO has no charge of indoor air quality anywhere, and no experience of designing or even supporting indoor air quality improvement/management programs. <br><br>In a webinar last week, I asked John Mitchell (will post on that webinar separately) a question along the following lines: <br><br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">"Any rule-making exercise under US law would require EPA to go through a public review and comment period. Why is EPA not allowing public release of the work discussed in this webinar such as the ISO documents?"</blockquote><br>A formal written reply is expected to come, hopefully also addressing two other questions I raised at the webinar. John's answer was simply, "Oh, ISO rules do not permit public disclosure." <br><br>But that begs the question -- just what legal authority did EPA have in joining and leading this secretive cabal? <br><br>I cannot find a single US legislation and budget authority for EPA to develop, or assist in the development of, standards for cookstoves in the developing world. <br><br>This is not a light matter. EPA cannot just go do what it pleases. In the case of GACC, whose contractual commitments are not public but can be forced to be public, I imagine the EPA Office of Air and Radiation could have obtained an agreement from the EPA Office of International Programs to sign an MOU with WHO and to also contract GACC to do the dirty work of standards development. And State had already given its blessings to GACC as one of Secretary Clinton's signature Global Partnership initiative or some such thing. <br><br>By dirty work, I don't mean a conspiracy or a criminal activity; just that standards development is a messy work, and begins with one or more service standards and a clear objective, both of which are missing in the IWA junket. The Lima Consensus and IWA are compromised because they were compromises among self-proclaimed stake-holders with no legal authority from any country. Still, they were small steps from private entrepreneurs blessed by EPA via PCIA (an EPA/USAID project). <br><br>But this messy work is also being done in secret, which to me does make it "dirty work" in the sense of not being legally vetted.<br><br>I hope someone brings a Congressional inquiry into this so the EPA Office of Inspector General - or the GAO - can properly evaluate the EPA-GACC connection. From all appearances so far, it is evident that GACC is EPA's vehicle for promoting --- well, I'm stumped; I can't see this exercise promoting anything. I urge TC-285 members to quit, or at least, all the working groups (I imagine there are some; I remember some GACC pictures with you in it). <br><br>Nikhil<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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)">
Dear Frank and Nikhil</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)">
It is interesting that the stove performance rating was made using the WBT4.2.3 and at the GERES lab, because GERES doesn't use the WBT themselves for their stove project work in Cambodia. </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)">
They have their own version of the test and created it because of a desire to have the test result have more relevance to performance in use. I am quite certain it was adapted by David Beritault. David was the co-Project Leader writing the Contextual Test section
of ISO 19867 before it was split into two documents: 19867-1 (Standard Lab test) and 19867-2 (Contextual Lab test).</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)">
David was a contributor to the technical aspects of the CSI test method and is one of the few reviewers to examine all the formulae contained in the spreadsheet.
</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)">
His effort to constrain the errors of the WBT resulted in an increase in its contextually but did not diminish some of the problems. It is, however, a better test method than the WBT and is available for download on the GACC website under Test protocols.
</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)">
Finally, the test result says that the traditional stove is 27% efficient. The claimed modest fuel saving of the 'improved stove' is modest because of that number. The number is incorrect (because of miscalculation) and is probably close to 22-24%. This may
(or may not) improve the comparison with the improved stove depending on how much char is abandoned at the end. </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)">
As usual, the low power metrics don't mean anything because the amount of energy and emissions needed or produced to keep a hot pot hot is not dependent on the mass of water in 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)">
Regards </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<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></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Frank: <br>
<br>
Your last post prompted this idea - anybody interested in these stoves already winning buyers for Cambodia? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestoveauction.org%2Fcatalogue-of-products.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5a0342cda1f6494d519e08d53d88fb2a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482580884706538&sdata=IvjcVJf4uT8o2ePh4QKHqUFjZG4kUdX3KAAXEzHTo3k%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">http://www.thestoveauction.<wbr>org/catalogue-of-products.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From a cursory look, it seems like - using WBT and some generic Cambodia traditional stove/fuel mix as the baseline - purported efficiency gains are low and IWA ratings are used. <br>
<br>
Nice to see a proof that people buy stoves for whatever reasons they have and that WBT-assigned Tiers or stove type for that matter are not the be-all and the end-all of producing and selling stoves. <br>
<br>
Nikhil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_-8837412738625565774gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>