[Stoves] Top lit updraft combustors

[Nikhil Desai]

 Andrew:

I didn't mean participation in the list, which of course is voluntary.
Rather, the GACC choice to align itself with the WBT and and ARC's choice
to issue "ISO certificates".

They may have had EPA's tacit approval or active encouragement. Reasons are
not hard to gauge, but we won't know until EPA speaks to it. Or there is an
audit.

Unlike the US standards for new residential wood heating stoves, there is
no legal authority behind the use of WBT - or any protocol - or these "ISO
certificates".

Those who choose to follow GACC or contract with ARC ought to demand
justification, if they so wished.

Otherwise, these are all private choices.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 December 2017 at 21:05, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Xavier, Andrew:
> >
> > Dean is very much active with GACC - in the D-Lab cookbook or CCF 2017
> > dinners.
> >
> > If GACC has been requiring WBT and certain equipment and manuals that
> > correspond to WBT, it makes sense to claim "ISO certificates".
> >
> > These are private choices.
> >
> The trouble is we are holding this discussion on this list,
> contributions are voluntary. If people don't wish to reply then , as
> you say it is a private choice.
>
> Both Xavier and Crispin have pointed out that I was wrong about the
> development of the WBT and Aprovecho picked up the baton and ran with
> it.
>
> Not that that affects my views on it either way.
>
> Andrew
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171221/369b4143/attachment.html>