[Stoves] stoves and credits again (Ron)

[Nikhil Desai]

Ron:

You mentioned

"The WG1 and other reports in the 285 process are listed at
https://www.iso.org/committee/4857971.html <https://www.iso.org/
committee/4857971.html>

        Their status is found at https://www.iso.org/committee/
4857971/x/catalogue/ <https://www.iso.org/committee/4857971/x/catalogue/>. "

These two links provide no such information.

Would you be kind enough to share these reports in the TC 285 process and
their status?

Thank you.

Nikhil

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:33:06 -0600
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
Message-ID: <AD844E1C-0C95-4C53-BE56-9E010E174E22 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

List, cc Crispin

        Crispin responds here only to my fifth response in a 10-response
message I sent less than a half hour earlier (at 10:16 and 10:44 Larson
time).  My guess is that we will see no other.  Pity, as this deserves a
lot more attention.


> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> >>A thorough investigation of engineering sources finds no support for
rating performance on the basis of any of the energy being subtracted from
the denominator, the  input energy.
>
> >[RWL5:   What is the name and location of this ?thorough investigation???
>
> ISO TC-285 WG1 ?(Conceptual Review)
>
> As an ANSI nominated expert you should know that already. Your buddies
participated in it.

        [RWL1?:  I guess I am slowing down - but it would?ve helped if
Crispin had mentioned ISO, 285, or WG1.

        I am trying in this sequence of emails to make up for the fact that
I have not been a good contributor to this important and valuable
international ISO stove exercise.  I came in late - mainly because of this
very topic.

        The WG1 and other reports in the 285 process are listed at
https://www.iso.org/committee/4857971.html <https://www.iso.org/
committee/4857971.html>

        Their status is found at https://www.iso.org/committee/
4857971/x/catalogue/ <https://www.iso.org/committee/4857971/x/catalogue/>.
The numbering there makes it clear that WG2 is further along than WG1.  WG2
came to the exact opposite conclusion from WG1 on this topic of the
validity of the equation e3=e1/(1-e2).   I would be greatly surprised if
Crispin didn?t know this - as I am quite sure he voted against the majority
in (the almost complete?) WG2 report   I don?t believe either the WG1 or
WG2 report is able to be shared - but hope someone higher up in this chain
can give us more from either report.  I can?t.

     <snip>
Ron
>
> ?Regards
> Crispin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/afa9efa8/attachment.html>