[Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015

[Cecil Cook]

Dear Stovers,



Not sure what has caused time to skip beat here.  I just wrote and lost a
very clever response to the present thread of discussion on the multiple
short comings of the WBT which remarked the following:



(1.)  Science - even stove science - grows by fits and starts;



(2.)  science learns more from recognizing that *big mistakes* have
inadvertently been made that it does from research that confirms well
established scientific paradigms (see Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific
Discovery for the usefulness of scientific failure)


(3.)  in science - even the science of biomass stoves - progress comes from
the

retransmission of falsehood (falsification) by deductive chains of logic
from the failed predictions back to the falsification of theories, metrics,
and models because they generated mistaken predictions about stove
performance (or such matters as planetary motion, climate warming and
weirding, the effect of GMO 's on human and animal health, race as a
construct and its effect on IQ, and the Lamarkian notion that acquired
characteristics can be inherited, etc.)



(4.)  we are fortunate that people like Ianto Evans, Larry Winiarski, Dean
Still, Peter Scott, Nordica, Sam, and probably many others I do not know
took the bull by the horns and bravely originated a preliminary set of
principles for designing improved biomass burning stoves and also cobbled
together a series of provisional efficiency and emission tests.



These were the original Aprovecho stove pioneers who also founded the
Rocket Stove movement which mercifully improved upon the earlier Lorena
stove experiment that constructed thousands of high mass clay/sand
‘masonry’ stoves which were soon discovered to be much less efficient than
a well operated 3 stone fire. This group of appropriate technology
oriented, back to the land hippies gradually became more technical and
began to refine and apply the VITA WBT to measure and compare the
efficiency of different kinds of simple biomass stoves.



They put together a set of specifications and principles for designing,
building and optimizing the Rocket Stove which became the prototype in the
mind of the Aprovecho movement for all improved cookstoves anywhere in the
world.



Finally, the Aprovecho-niks and communards were joined by university based
engineers, physicists, chemists, and atmospheric scientists from UC
Berkeley, and a wide spectrum of university based scientists and private
sector professionals associated with the annual Ethos conference.



This professional and hands on US based network has been busy over the past
15 years attempting to clearly specify metrics that measure the
technological performance of biomass stoves. It has also pioneered the
design and instrumentation of stove testing centers and the specification
of observational protocols that correctly ‘opertionalize’ these metrics.
>From the beginning, the main purpose was to discover simple tests that
empirically assess the efficiency and emission performance of improved
biomass stoves and also to make quantitative comparisons between improved
stoves.



The rejection or lukewarm reception of many – perhaps most - improved
stoves in many countries of the developing world over the years has forced
European, American, Indian, African, Latin American, and Chinese designers
and makers of improved stoves to gradually expand their horizons to
investigate the roles played by all the other major factors, interests, and
constituencies which significantly influence over the acceptance or
rejection of new biomass stoves including: (i.) funding agents like USAID,
the World Bank, and GIZ, (ii.) standard setting agencies like EPA and the
WHO, (iii.) large scale industrial and village scale craft manufacturers,
(iv.) the controllers of access to gathered or commercialized fuels from
the nearby environments, and (v.) the socio-economic, cultural, and human
factors involved in the institutionalization of  one or more dominant stove
technologies and products in a particular market segment; these human
factors are ultimately the most important determinants of user acceptance
or rejection of improved stoves. The acceptance or rejection depends on the
perceptions of the utility of a new stove within the household economy
where the stove has multiple functions to perform: cooking the food eaten
by the family, heating its home, earning income by providing heat to power
home industry, purifying water, drying crops, providing light, and creating
a social and spiritual center around which family life revolves.



Speaking as a science challenged social anthropologist I think that several
things need to be acknowledged about the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos (ABE)
alliance.



(1.)  It has done a good job of promoting the Rocket Stove design around
the world.

(2.)  On the down side, its efforts to demystify the design of improved
stoves and empower village and craft fabricators of simple low cost stoves,
the ABE Alliance appears to have conflated improved stoves in general with
the basic Rocket Stove.

(3.)  This conflation of Rocket stoves with biomass stoves in general has
unfortunately led to emission and efficiency metrics and testing procedures
which perhaps unintentionally advantage the Rocket Stove and disadvantage
all other types of stoves (e.g., the specification of 1 inch square pieces
of oven dried spruce or pine as the test fuel that must be expertly fed
into any stove being tested).  The reliance on metrics and test protocols
which favour some stoves and disadvantage other stoves does not lead to
stable or valid comparisons of the efficiency and emission performances of
different types of stoves or even the same kind of stoves.

(4.)  The leadership role assumed by the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos Alliance
in the US State Dept funded and EPA supported Global Alliance for Clean
Cookstoves and the GACC’s adoption of the WBT metrics, protocols and
instrumentation has complicated an already complex predicament. Because
personal and institutional reputations are at risk, it is becoming
increasingly difficult to radically change the WBT metrics, test protocols,
and instruments without creating winners and losers. The GACC and big
political players are in danger of exposure for prematurely funding big
implementation programs without first settling the science of small biomass
stove testing.

(5.)  Here is my proposal for salvaging the present ugly situation of stove
scientists behaving badly in public: let all the stove scientists and stove
testers who think they know how to test the efficiency and emissions of
small cooking and heating stoves agree on an independent standard
developing and setting organization like TUV Rheinland-USA (www.*tuv*
.com/en/usa/home.jsp <http://www.tuv.com/en/usa/home.jsp>)  or some other
respected science testing establishment in the world and ask them to review
all the different metrics, testing protocols, equipment/instrumentation on
offer.  The GACC probably has the funds needed to pay for such a
comprehensive review. It can invite all the stove scientists and testers
with skin in the game to form themselves into a small advisory body whose
job is to ensure that no interested party or parties captures or dominates
the review of existing test protocols and metrics. That means the proposed
advisory group will have to consult openly about the rules that will govern
the consultative, re-conciliatory and global culture and science creating
process they will go through together.

(6.)  I understand that the ISO process and the IWA’s are attempting to do
what I am proposing we ask TUV Rheinland or another comparable science
testing institution to do on behalf of the presently dysfunctional small
stove community around the planet. Here is my contention: the ISO was and
is premature because the small stove community is too divided by
conflicting research styles and programs prioritizing the stove operator,
family health, employment creation, environmental stability, energy
sustainability, and decentralization and appropriate technology.  The
suggested involvement of TUV Rheinland USA is to help a grumpy,
preoccupied, and stressed out international stove community to speed up its
integration around second generation metrics, stove testing protocols, lab
procedures, and possibly even field tests.



My interest here is to allow all stove scientists and hands-on stove
innovators to give their testimony about:



(i.)            what specific aspects of stove performance need to be
observed, reduced to metrics,  quantified and compared,

(ii.)           what testing protocols, methodologies, equipment, and

(iii.)          what field observations are required to predict both stove
performance and probable  stove use in particular target communities?



In that way the Independent third party agency reviewing the WBT, the
testimony of the partisans of particular approaches to testing and specific
metrics, will get the benefit of all the years of good work done by stove
scientists, manufacturers, trainers, vendors, lab testers, back yard
innovators, etc. around the world.



If we simply continue the low intensity stove testing wars fought at the
World Bank, USAID, EPA, UC Berkeley, several national labs, the GACC, and
in most of the different countries where stove testing is under development
we will continue to develop backwards. It is not fair to our partners in
the developing world because we are sewing confusion and conflict among our
partisans and our enemies. My goodness such conduct is not professional,
even in post modern North America and Europe where nowadays it’s difficult
to find a flesh and blood human being to talk to in the midst of cyber
anarchy and inward facing crowds.



And let us not forget dear Rumi, a Sufi poet who wrote in the 13th century:




Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.



Ask Rumi to help us find our way out of this mess we are creating. And do
not forget what Walt Kelly’s philosophical opossum - Pogo - who lived in
the Okefenokee swamp in my part of south Georgia as known to say when
politics got out of hand:



“We have met the enemy and he is us” or even better: “we are defeated by
insurmountable opportunities”.



In search and service,

CECook



















































Dear Stovers,



Not sure what has caused time to skip a beat here.  I just wrote and lost a
very clever response to the present thread of discussion on the multiple
short comings of the WBT which remarked the following:



(1.)  Science - even stove science - grows by fits and starts;



(2.)  science learns more from recognizing that *big mistakes* have
inadvertently been made that it does from research that confirms well
established scientific paradigms (see Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific
Discovery for the usefulness of scientific failure)



(3.)  in science - even the science of biomass stoves - progress comes from
the

retransmission of falsehood (falsification) by deductive chains of logic
from the failed predictions back to the falsification of theories, metrics,
and models because they generated mistaken predictions about stove
performance (or such matters as planetary motion, climate warming and
weirding, the effect of GMO 's on human and animal health, race as a
construct and its effect on IQ, and the Lamarkian notion that acquired
characteristics can be inherited, etc.)



(4.)  we are fortunate that people like Ianto Evans, Larry Winiarski, Dean
Still, Peter Scott, Nordica, Sam, and probably many others I do not know
took the bull by the horns and bravely originated a preliminary set of
principles for designing improved biomass burning stoves and also cobbled
together a series of provisional efficiency and emission tests.



These were the original Aprovecho stove pioneers who also founded the
Rocket Stove movement which mercifully improved upon the earlier Lorena
stove experiment that constructed thousands of high mass clay/sand
‘masonry’ stoves which were soon discovered to be much less efficient than
a well operated 3 stone fire. This group of appropriate technology
oriented, back to the land hippies gradually became more technical and
began to refine and apply the VITA WBT to measure and compare the
efficiency of different kinds of simple biomass stoves.



They put together a set of specifications and principles for designing,
building and optimizing the Rocket Stove which became the prototype in the
mind of the Aprovecho movement for all improved cookstoves anywhere in the
world.



Finally, the Aprovecho-niks and communards were joined by university based
engineers, physicists, chemists, and atmospheric scientists from UC
Berkeley, and a wide spectrum of university based scientists and private
sector professionals associated with the annual Ethos conference.



This professional and hands on US based network has been busy over the past
15 years attempting to clearly specify metrics that measure the
technological performance of biomass stoves. It has also pioneered the
design and instrumentation of stove testing centers and the specification
of observational protocols that correctly ‘opertionalize’ these metrics.
>From the beginning, the main purpose was to discover simple tests that
empirically assess the efficiency and emission performance of improved
biomass stoves and also to make quantitative comparisons between improved
stoves.



The rejection or lukewarm reception of many – perhaps most - improved
stoves in many countries of the developing world over the years has forced
European, American, Indian, African, Latin American, and Chinese designers
and makers of improved stoves to gradually expand their horizons to
investigate the roles played by all the other major factors, interests, and
constituencies which significantly influence over the acceptance or
rejection of new biomass stoves including: (i.) funding agents like USAID,
the World Bank, and GIZ, (ii.) standard setting agencies like EPA and the
WHO, (iii.) large scale industrial and village scale craft manufacturers,
(iv.) the controllers of access to gathered or commercialized fuels from
the nearby environments, and (v.) the socio-economic, cultural, and human
factors involved in the institutionalization of  one or more dominant stove
technologies and products in a particular market segment; these human
factors are ultimately the most important determinants of user acceptance
or rejection of improved stoves. The acceptance or rejection depends on the
perceptions of the utility of a new stove within the household economy
where the stove has multiple functions to perform: cooking the food eaten
by the family, heating its home, earning income by providing heat to power
home industry, purifying water, drying crops, providing light, and creating
a social and spiritual center around which family life revolves.



Speaking as a science challenged social anthropologist I think that several
things need to be acknowledged about the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos (ABE)
alliance.



(1.)  It has done a good job of promoting the Rocket Stove design around
the world.

(2.)  On the down side, its efforts to demystify the design of improved
stoves and empower village and craft fabricators of simple low cost stoves,
the ABE Alliance appears to have conflated improved stoves in general with
the basic Rocket Stove.

(3.)  This conflation of Rocket stoves with biomass stoves in general has
unfortunately led to emission and efficiency metrics and testing procedures
which perhaps unintentionally advantage the Rocket Stove and disadvantage
all other types of stoves (e.g., the specification of 1 inch square pieces
of oven dried spruce or pine as the test fuel that must be expertly fed
into any stove being tested).  The reliance on metrics and test protocols
which favour some stoves and disadvantage other stoves does not lead to
stable or valid comparisons of the efficiency and emission performances of
different types of stoves or even the same kind of stoves.

(4.)  The leadership role assumed by the Aprovecho/Berkeley/Ethos Alliance
in the US State Dept funded and EPA supported Global Alliance for Clean
Cookstoves and the GACC’s adoption of the WBT metrics, protocols and
instrumentation has complicated an already complex predicament. Because
personal and institutional reputations are at risk, it is becoming
increasingly difficult to radically change the WBT metrics, test protocols,
and instruments without creating winners and losers. The GACC and big
political players are in danger of exposure for prematurely funding big
implementation programs without first settling the science of small biomass
stove testing.

(5.)  Here is my proposal for salvaging the present ugly situation of stove
scientists behaving badly in public: let all the stove scientists and stove
testers who think they know how to test the efficiency and emissions of
small cooking and heating stoves agree on an independent standard
developing and setting organization like TUV Rheinland-USA (www.*tuv*
.com/en/usa/home.jsp <http://www.tuv.com/en/usa/home.jsp>)  or some other
respected science testing establishment in the world and ask them to review
all the different metrics, testing protocols, equipment/instrumentation on
offer.  The GSCC probably has the funds needed to pay for such a
comprehensive review. It can invite all the stove scientists and testers
with skin in the game to form themselves into a small advisory body whose
job is to ensure that no interested party or parties captures or dominates
the review of existing test protocols and metrics. That means the proposed
advisory group will have to consult openly about the rules that will govern
the consultative, reconciliatory and global culture and science creating
process they will go through together.

(6.)  I understand that the ISO process and the IWA’s are attempting to do
what I am proposing we ask TUV Rheinland or another comparable science
testing institution to do on behalf of the presently dysfunctional small
stove community around the planet. Here is my contention: the ISO was and
is premature because the small stove community is too divided by
conflicting research styles and programs prioritizing health, employment
creation, environmental stability, energy sustainability, decentralization
and appropriate technology.  The suggested involvement to TUV Rheinland USA
is to help a grumpy, preoccupied, and stressed out international stove
community to speed up its integration around second generation metrics,
stove testing protocols, lab procedures, and possibly even field tests.



My interest here is to allow all stove scientists and hands on stove
workers to give their testimony about



(i.)            what specific aspects of stove performance need to be
observed, reduced to metrics, quantified and compared,

(ii.)           what testing protocols, methodologies, equipment, and

(iii.)          what field observations are required to predict both stove
performance and probable stove use in particular target communities?



In that way the Independent third party agency reviewing the WBT, the
testimony of the partisans of particular approaches to testing and
particular metrics, will get the benefit of all the years of good work done
by stove scientists, manufacturers, trainers, vendors, lab testers, back
yard innovators, etc.



If we simply continue the low intensity stove testing wars fought at the
World Bank, USAID, EPA, UC Berkeley, several national labs, the GACC, and
in most of the different countries where stove testing is under development
we will continue to develop backwards. It is not fair to our partners in
the developing world because we are sewing confusion and conflict among our
partisans and our enemies.



And let us not forget dear Rumi, a Sufi poet who wrote in the 13th century:




Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.



Ask Rumi to help us find our way out of this mess we are creating. And do
not forget what Walt Kelly’s philosophical opossum of the Okefenokee swamp
in my part of south Georgia liked to say:



“We have met the enemy and he is us” or even better: “we are defeated by
insurmountable opportunities”.



In search and service,

CECook



On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Philip,
>
> The Low Power test works well when the fuel use is normalized using a set
> simmering temperature.
>
> Sam and I are writing up some characteristics of the WBT and I'll post the
> paper here. Lots of work to do and I look forward to our continued
> collaboration.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Dear Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> Crispin said it well:
>> “The three low power metrics are invalid. The variables selected are
>> inappropriately chosen. The calculated results are misleading and contrary
>> to any claim [that] they provide guidance for product development or
>> selection. We have to move on.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I have looked at the simmering metrics in WBT 4.3.2 and can only concur.
>> That is why I do not think we should waste much more time arguing about
>> them – they are fundamentally wrong. Yes, stove designers need to be
>> concerned with simmering and turndown; no, the WBT simmering metrics do not
>> provide them with guidance, and can be positively misleading, which is
>> worse.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip Lloyd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Dean Still
>> *Sent:* 15 February 2015 06:38
>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re:
>> [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Prof Loyd,
>>
>>
>>
>> As I pointed out, when the stoves do the same work (hold the water at 97
>> C, for example) the stove with greater heat transfer efficiency scores
>> better. Simmering tests are important and simmering is an important part of
>> cooking.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ISO process is creating new history and approaches to old problems.
>> Whatever emerges will certainly be defensible as the new approaches are
>> forged by consensus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> I am concerned that this is turning into a very fruitless discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On fundamental grounds the simmering test does not provide anything
>> meaningful.  Crispin has demonstrated that rigorously, and others have
>> pointed out that the test can score an efficient stove poorly and an
>> inefficient stove well, so it does not provide any useful measure.  To go
>> on defending the indefensible does not make sense, even if it did
>> accentuate the need for turndown – but that need was always there, it was
>> not the product of the WBT.
>>
>>
>>
>> We need defensible measures of stove performance.  Can we please turn our
>> attention to developing those, and leave the indefensible to history?
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof Philip Lloyd
>>
>> Energy Institute
>>
>> Cape Peninsula University of Technology
>>
>> PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000
>>
>> Tel:021 460 4216
>>
>> Fax:021 460 3828
>>
>> Cell: 083 441 5247
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Paul Anderson
>> *Sent:* 15 February 2015 02:26
>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer efficiency Re:
>> [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Dean,    my reply is below:
>>
>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>
>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>>
>> Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>
>> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>>
>> On 2/14/2015 1:06 PM, Dean Still wrote:
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> To do well on the Low Power Specific Consumption metrics the stove has to
>> have a good Turn Down Ratio. In other words, the stove has to have high
>> power and low power.
>>
>> I totally agree with this.   But it is not the whole story of LPSC.
>> Other factors influence LPSC, especially concerning the measurement of the
>> variables that are used to make the calculation.   These can include the
>> insulation of the pot (incl. skirts), lid on pot, pot characteristics such
>> as size, quantity of water in the pot at the start, and at the finish.
>>
>>
>>
>> Specific Consumption is based on how much energy was used to create
>> simmered water.
>>
>> Simmered water is not created.   It was already hot at the start of the
>> simmer phase of testing.   We are interested in how much energy is used to
>> MAINTAIN the required temperature near boiling, but preferable about 3
>> degrees C lower than that boiling temperature.   In fact, a
>> super-insulative pot could need barely a flicker of a flame, and therefore
>> even a well turned-down stove could cause the water to boil and
>> evaporate.
>>
>> If the stove only operates at high power there is more steam made and [at
>> the end of testing] less simmered water remains....
>>
>> that is true.   but continue.
>>
>> ..... so energy was used to create less product.
>>
>> Stove simmering is not creating a product.   It is maintaining a
>> temperature.   The steam that is driven off does not represent loss of
>> "product" which should be understood to be "cooked food" (and not meaning
>> water that can be added to the pot by any attentive cook in a household.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I like Specific Consumption because it forces stove designers to make
>> stoves that simmer successfully, not just boil water.
>>
>> I agree.   But the measurement procedures need to accurately document the
>> ability to have that strong turn-down ratio, without calculations that can
>> yield ambiguous or mis-leading results.
>>
>> For example, new TLUDs are better stoves because they have both high
>> power and low power. In my opinion, the WBT 4.2.3 helped to create these
>> more successful TLUDs.
>>
>> The cause-and-effect relationship is not totally clear.   We have wanted
>> turn-down capabilities in TLUDs for many years.
>>
>>
>>
>> As Sam says, we are working on a paper showing characteristics of the WBT
>> 4.2.3 for the ISO work. Knowing the characteristics lets folks evolve a
>> perfect test.
>>
>> I question the above wording to "evolve a perfect test" (which is a test
>> run, not the test procedures.)   Maybe the statement should be that
>> "knowing the characteristics let's folks operate their stoves in special
>> ways to obtain superior results that are not realistic for average users."
>> OR "... let's folks 'game the metrics' to present 'perfected' test-results
>> BASED ON OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND NOT ON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STOVES
>> THEMSELVES."
>>
>> OR it could be that flawed protocols /procedures (such as dividing by the
>> volume of remaining water after simmering) can yield numerical results that
>> are questionable and perhaps disadvantageous to the development of clean
>> cookstoves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sam is doing great work as he crunches all the data....
>>
>> absolutely.   But we are questioning if the numbers are as valid and
>> useful as claimed.
>>
>>  and gives ISO real numbers to work with in their discussions.
>>
>>
>> Concluding statement:   The topic of Low Power Specific Consumption is
>> too important to just brush aside the stated issues.   More "expert
>> testimony" would be useful, including a mathematical analysis of the impact
>> of the parts of the calculations.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Tom H.,         and to all who are interested in proper testing of
>> stoves.
>>
>> Your reply about your experiences is helpful.   Sounds like you had
>> qualified testing center do the testing, in accordance with the procedures
>> that Crispin is questioning.   Please send to me the full details.   Could
>> be off-list, but this is sufficiently important that we will want the full
>> results known.
>>
>> I have a specific case of official testing of one of my stoves with
>> unfavorable results for Low-Heat Efficiency (simmering).   I will add that
>> into the list of examples and provide the details very soon.
>>
>> I invite anyone else who has something to report about simmering
>> efficiency to also send details of their experiences, either favorable or
>> unfavorable or neutral.
>>
>> The examination of the questionable methods about simmer efficiency might
>> take some days, maybe weeks.   But not the months or years that this debate
>> has been "simmering".
>>
>> Remember:  A testing center that properly conducts testing using an
>> endorsed but possibly flawed procedure is NOT a culprit.  The culprit is
>> the testing protocols, *IF found to be faulty.   *And we hope that the
>> testing center people (employees and leaders) who understand the technical
>> aspects of the calculations will be among those who can help resolve these
>> serious issues.
>>
>> Even those who developed protocols that are eventually shown to be faulty
>> are not culprits.   Mistakes can be made.    However, the culprits can
>> include those who advocate a protocol that he or she knows (or reasonably
>> suspects) to be faulty.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>
>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>>
>> Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>
>> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> 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
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150216/27396804/attachment.html>