Dear Tom
You are inspiring me on this lazy long weekend. I looked at the topics for ETHOS and saw "Update on ISO process". There is no ISO process - it has not been started yet. What I am afraid of is that someone will declare that 'the ISO process documents are ready' and all we need to do is hold a meeting and rubber stamp them. The idea that an ISO standard is going to be worked out ahead of time by commenting on a website is mistaken. The document will be negotiated by country representatives just like all over ISO standards. We won't be having a repeat of the situation where the IWA content was not really discussed beforehand, and the time available was so short in the meeting, it is not a representation of the assembled knowledge of the stove community. It was the same-old unrepentant WBT and a new safety protocol from Nate Johnson (who did a good job). Prior to that we had a rubber stamping session in Lima where 15 of the >500 people in attendance agreed to the old WBT outfitted with a new frock as a default method of determining stove performance. It doesn't determine stove performance so why would anyone make it a default method?? The stove community was always underfunded and now it is getting masses of funding interest from multiple quarters. This requires a shift in political thinking. If the statistical, physical and social knowledge available in the non-stove community is not systematically applied to the methods used, there are going to be some very rude awakenings. The stove community has always existed in a netherworld of para-science and enthusiasm. That was never a problem (or was a small one) when there was no money involved. But rest assured, there will be industry-wide consequences when the prevailing lack of due diligence, the back-room deals and the para-science of 'stoves' sees the bright light of Quality Control Reports. Just what does 'finalising the WBT' mean? Has it ever been rated for precision as an experimental method? Where is that report? What is its fuel consumption metric accuracy? It does not measure fuel consumption. Could this explain why stoves that 'test well' perform so badly and people don't use them? I think so. My idea of finalising it is to buy it a headstone. How many more thousands of hours should be invested in it? While we are at it, let's review the CCT 2.0 which does not measure fuel consumption either. It is widely touted as a final check on stove performance in the field. It only yields two metrics but neither of them is the consumption of fuel, for heaven's sake. Tom, we are going to need two weekends. Regards Crispin Mark, You have listed a number of standards and protocol topics. Now that GACC exists have we made any gains on the science side? Where is the data? We should be generating good field data by now. I don't want to just hear reports about what people have decided in political committees that nobody seems to be able to attend or vote in. I would like to see a critical review of the testing protocols and methods with regard to the key metrics and emissions. For example, the protocols to date have made assumptions about heating values of fuels and residues ash and charcoal that I have always felt were just placeholders until someone with larger research budgets could validate them. Determining the amount of energy left in the ash or charcoal is a good example. I often get asked what value to use for the remaining ash/charcoal. I haven't seen a test where the remaining charcoal/ash has been directly tested for ash content and heating value. Testing the benchmarks. Do the benchmarks that were derived several years ago make sense now that we have improved tools for measuring stove performance or do we get the same numbers because we're using the same tools? Do the benchmarks tell us anything about stove performance in the field? Do stoves preform in the field in the same relative way they are shown to perform in the lab or are some stoves much better than others (or much worse) when they are used in the field? Are the stoves designed to the test (e.g. WBT) or to the use in the field? Do some stoves perform best when they are tested in the lab and fail in the field? Or, are we even testing for this? Field applications. Are our tools and metrics of any use for improving stove performance in actual use? If so then how are projects in developing countries using these tools to improve their fuel use and health? How do local, nation, or regional stove projects use these tools to improve their stoves, or do they just ignore them? QA/QC. When a program buys container loads of stoves how do we know that they perform within the expectations created by the test results? Do any of the manufactured stove suppliers test the quality and performance of their stoves on a regular basis? Is there any monitoring? How has testing been used for different fuels? I was inspired this week by a photo from Mexican which a construction worker was using an LPG burner in an eCocina stove (Stove Team International) because it substantially reduced his LG use. Can we compare fuel consumption for different fuels? How good are our fuel consumption metrics? Health. We still do not have proven direct correlation between stove emissions and heath. Most of the data seems to be recycled. Are there new health studies? Has GACC and the many supporting organizations funded any of the fundamental health studies that every year Jay Smith tells us are lacking? These are some of the questions that I would like to see addressed at ETHOS. Looking forward to another productive ETHOS. Thanks Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants, Inc. [email protected] www.trmiles.com www.stove.bioenergylists.org From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryden, Kenneth [M E] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:05 PM To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; ETHOS - Listserve Subject: [Ethos] ETHOS 2013 All, It's that time of year again! We're starting to get the activities together together for the ETHOS conference. The conference will be January 25 - 27, 2013 in Seattle. Proposed discussion topics include - Update on the Global Alliance and their activities - Standardizing Reporting on IWA Indicators - Stove Performance Inventory, Sharing Public Data, and Establishing Common Data Formats - Update on ISO Process - Updates on Protocol Developments (including possibly charcoal, plancha, batch-fed, durability, finalizing WBT from public comment period) Let us know what else you would like to talk about. A lot is happening and I'm sure it will be as exciting as ever. I'd appreciate having your ideas on topics and panels by November 15. Abstracts for papers and talks are due January 1. For more details, to register, and to submit your abstract the conference web site is http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/conference.php. Please send your ideas directly to Dean and I. Best regards Mark
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
