<div dir="ltr">Xavier:<br><br>Below in red the concluding part of my 30 October 2017 review of DIS 19867-1. I can dig up the details if you wish.<br><br>You know I don't care for the WBT but nor for the IWA performance metrics, because they cannot be rationally linked to any objective. Efficiency increases do not protect forests, and lower emission rates do not guarantee lower pollutant dosage, without many interim assumptions that vary from case to case. <br><br>There was no showing, not even a simplistic argument, that the standard proposed would do any good - produce replicable results for locally relevant fuels and cooking practices. <br><br>In short, the document was an arrogant product of experts with no accountability, no mandate under any law, floating in the clouds of globally homogeneous fuels, cooks, meals, meteorology, building conditions, and massaging data and egos.<br><br>Nothing will come of it any time soon to deliver breathing space for even 30 million people, leave alone 3 billion.<br><br>Did anybody want it otherwise? <br><br>Time to salvage the sinking ship. <br><br> Nikhil<br><br>--------<div>My views on the draft DIS 19867-1<br><br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0px 12pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">There is no convincing case that adoption of these Laboratory Testing Protocols changes anything other than pressures for favoring USEPA-ordained methods and equipment with poor or no record of reliability or usefulness in designing useful cookstoves.</span></i><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif"><span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0px 0.0001pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;line-height:normal;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">For specific reasons outlined below, I consider this document unripe for decision and recommend that it be rejected and returned to the ISO. <br><br></span><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">a) the document fails to meet its stated goals and is thus not mature for final publication;<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0px 0.0001pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;line-height:normal;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">b) the metrics of “performance’ that are beyond the control of the stove designer or supplier must not be mandated upon them; <span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0px 0.0001pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;line-height:normal;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">c) in particular, there is no justification for including in any particular protocol for laboratory or field testing performance targets that do not meet an explicit public policy objective articulated in a policy framework and enforced; and,<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0px 0.0001pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:16.8667px;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:red">d) the required procedures, equipment and calibration techniques have not been proven to be reliable guides to stove design and testing in the past, and it is not necessary to rely on a fixed set of parameters for fuel type and quality, cookstove type, residential environment, cooking tasks, foods, and non-cooking co-products (space heating, charmaking) if the only benefit is reduced conflict between stove theorists, with no showing that the designers and suppliers of stoves and fuels benefit from it. <br><br>No case has been made that international harmonization and alignment of methodology and metrics according to DIS 19867-1 has a logical, if uncertain, path to solving any particular problem. This DIS has to be revised and offered for review simultaneously with Part II of 19867-1 and all other documents in preparation for 19867 series in order for the serviceability of the package to be assessed. <br><br>After settling what the policy goals and particular problems are, the protocols should be piloted in a select number of locations – urban and rural, with varying seasonal patterns in stove use and fuel quality, different altitudes and residential structures – to verify that the methods are used and useful for stoves of different sizes, temperature and power patterns, and contribute to design of stoves that are proven acceptable in use. Only then they can be attractive to individual member states. </span></p>
<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><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><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Nikhil Desai</font></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><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 Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:16 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-9116097292959843251WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Ron,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"><b><i>« </i></b></span><b><i>I assure you that I have plenty of company - and it will appear soon. »<u></u><u></u></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">Sure, anytime, I am always available to have a conversation with anyone who will wish to demonstrate how the WBT is a reliable protocol, and why it should be used.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>« <b>But that is not sufficient reason to drop the test. »<u></u><u></u></b></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">Then I don’t know what is.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>Xavier<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><span class=""><b>De :</b> Ronal W. Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>> <br></span><b>Envoyé :</b> samedi 28 juillet 2018 02:23<br><b>À :</b> Xavier Brandao <<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Cc :</b> Discussion of biomass <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a>>; Kirk Harris <<a href="mailto:kgharris@sonic.net" target="_blank">kgharris@sonic.net</a>><span class=""><br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Xavier, Kirk and list<u></u><u></u></p></div><span class=""><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"> </span>see below<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:53 PM, <<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Ron,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I don’t think the new ISO standard includes the WBT, I think you are the only person claiming that.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL: I guess you will trust what the South Africa group thinks on this subject. They failed in a fight to remove the WBT. </b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"><b> </b></span><b> I could send a copy of what has been approved - but that would violate the agreement I made to be part of the process. </b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"><b> </b></span><b>I assure you that I have plenty of company - and it will appear soon. </b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"><b> </b></span><b>What Nikhil has is possibly/probably 99% of the final.</b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><br><br></b><u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Until there exists reviews of the WBT protocol demonstrating it is valid, the « cites for inadequacy that are very old » (some are from 2016 and 2017) will be the only proofs there is.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">« <b>[RWL3: Can you give cites on these three sentences? Maybe from some group that treats char as waste? »</b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">See the table from<span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Riva and al., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for</i><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><i>improved and traditional three – Stone fire cookstoves</i><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-converted-space"> </span>below, this is with the WBT:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><image001.png><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Some of the stoves tested were « Micro-Gasifier Stoves with FAN »<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>« [RWL4: I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or char-making. »</i></b><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-9116097292959843251apple-tab-span"> </span><b>RWL: I agree that the word micro-gasifier was there. They still were only arguing for more tests - that I still claim aren't worth the extra effort. Too much depends on the operator of the test. But that is not sufficient reason to drop the test. Just be satisfied if you and other groups can get within a few percent.</b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Ron</b><u></u><u></u></p></div></span></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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.<wbr>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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>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/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>