Ranyee, list, Crispin, and Paul Thanks for your "test" response below, on behalf of GACC.
I am not very worried about fixing what Crispin has identified for the vast majority of existing stoves. I am sure he is raising valid concerns but they are not mine (nor I think Paul's). The earlier messages in this thread do not seem to be related at all to the new brand of (superior??) stoves that make char. The present standards were developed when no-one was even aware of the potential of char-making stoves. The present set of measurements for char-makng stoves are akin to judging the quality of oranges using rules set up for apples. Therefore, I strongly urge getting a separate group together with only char-making and carbon negative climate interests to assist in any revision to the present standards. The fact that about half of the stoves being demonstrated in Phnom Penh two weeks ago are being given testing tasks and rankings that are ill-suited for their design should be of serious concern to GACC. I thought you and the entire GACC staff put on a marvelous conference in a wonderful location. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ranyee Chiang" <[email protected]> To: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]>, "Paul Anderson" <[email protected]>, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 1:52:37 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove testing with and beyond the WBT Paul, Dean, Crispin, et al. - We’re looking forward to seeing the detailed proposed protocol. For all protocol development, we at the Alliance have been emphasizing the need for review by broad stakeholders – regional testing centers, manufacturers, investors, and consumer representatives as much as possible, so we hope that the review process can continue with this effort. At one point Crispin had questioned whether this process leads to independent review. I think independence is a tricky concept, because it’s unclear who the independence would be from. But I think a better way to achieve the broad goal is to have inclusive and public review (if you have enough voices, the result is somewhat independent from everyone). I think the issues to especially focus on will be ones that impact the various stakeholders - testing feasibility, resources needed (time, financial, equipment), clarity for communicating results, etc. As Dean mentioned, we are focused on how to integrate field considerations into best practices for testing and standards. We had much discussion at the Forum (notes are currently being polished), and it will continue. It will be important to work out how we fit the different protocols together, when which protocol is used, based on context, resources, goals. How would newly developed procedures supplement, partially replace, replace existing protocols? Of course, this is also related to the goal for harmonization as raised in the IWA. Paul also raised the issue of recalculating older test results so they can be comparable or harmonized. I think another issue to consider is how much have technologies changed and are the older test results still applicable. We are also planning discussions to map out a strategy for integrating future testing results and data together, especially to communicate stove performance (IWA Tiers) that has been independently evaluated. Part of the discussion should be around what is the minimal set of data that the testing centers need to share to facilitate collaboration and harmonization among the different centers. Best regards, Ranyee From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:41 PM To: 'Paul Anderson'; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' Cc: Ranyee Chiang Subject: RE: Stove testing with and beyond the WBT Dear Paul and Everyone Thanks for devoting so much time to considering the tasks ahead and the alternative paths forward. As you know from your travels we face a huge variety of testing requirements in the field. It is my hope that we can create an agreed scientific platform on which to perform a wide variety of culturally relevant tests that provide normalised results. The Toolbox is a collection of mathematical and cultural tools for measuring performance over a wide range of conditions in diverse cultures. I am particularly thankful to Cecil Cook for the efforts contributed to developing the social science tools about which we will hear a lot more in the coming months. The cultural appropriateness of stoves is often considered only after a technology has been ‘invented’. Being relevant is a major consideration to marketing campaigns. Sustainability is strongly desired and being sustainable means being simultaneously an improvement and desirable from cultural, economic and environmental points of view. It is by definition a Triple Bottom Line adventure. We will share as much as we can as and when contributors add to the Toolbox. Although it is an inadequate description due to the fact it is brief, I have attached a Powerpoint presentation giving some of the motivating factors for creating the Stove Testing Toolbox and what can be expected from it. Very briefly it intends to provide each tool with the purpose, the metrics, the definitions and the presentation of results for conducting a single testing element of any performance evaluation. While this is implicit in many tests, this divides each task conceptually into discrete segments and creates validated processes that normalises data in order to permit a wide range of tests to give comparable results. It does not specify any tasks, it specifies how a task of that type should be done to get a relevant and correct output. This is widely done in the fields of assessing engineering performance and medical research into diseases and treatments. Regards Crispin Dear Stovers, Since the GACC Forum in Cambodia, the topic of stove testing "problems and opportunities" have led me to some thoughts to share, along with some examples. In the document I wrote: I believe that a collection and combination of various tests will SERVE MUCH BETTER the needs of the cookstove communities than will the overreliance on the “standard WBT”, even when that WBT has eventually been corrected for errors in calculation, and formally reviewed openly. The attached document is for all to read and share with others, and it will be placed on the www.drtlud.com and could be at the Stoves website if Tom and Erin think it is worthy. Paul Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD" Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072 Website: www.drtlud.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
