[Stoves] WBT disagrements

Tue Jan 9 06:41:21 CST 2018

Dear Kirk

I think your explanation below about instruments gives a hint that you may be asking about particular sets of instruments, or particular ways of making measurements. I answers your question as a matter of principle and should not be construed as approving any particular set of apparatus.

When you mention 'computer readouts' I wonder if you mean, for example the raw data generated by a PEMS or LEMS. All the labs I use have such computer logged data but they are nothing like a PEMS system.

The PEMS is not a WBT of course. I have used them to conduct several other types of test‎. It uses a carbon balance method, which is not accurate during any portion of a test that doesn't not burn the fuel homogeneously.

Regards
Crispin

From: Kirk H.
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:57
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: [Stoves] WBT disagrements

All,

I recently asked a question about whether the disagreement with the WBT included the sensors, filters and computer graphing as well as the water boiling portion of the overall test.  I have received several responses from Crispin and Xavier (some off list).  From all that was said by them I have assembled an answer:  The sensors, filters and computer read-outs are part of the WBT, but not part of the disagreement with the WBT.  So this disagreement is with a portion of the WBT test, not all of it.  Also, I believe that Crispin has a second disagreement that questions whether some sensors and setups are able to provide accurate read-outs.  I believe that this is a legitimate concern for scientific study, however I also believe in different standards for different purposes.  Perfection is not always needed.

This is an acceptable answer for me.  It is not pro or con to the WBT or any protocol.  My question was intentionally neutral.  I just wanted to know the extent of the disagreement.

My position on the WBT remains neutral.  I use it because it is available for me in a lab, whereas the other protocols are not.  The WBT does very well for what I need.  It tells me if a change in the stove is helpful or not.  Whether or not it is perfect science is not important for my interests.

I believe that Aprovecho (ARC) plays an important part for wood stove development and education and I remain a supporter.

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C438917cf76b54bd2a95708d5570ca685%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636510634196168092&sdata=FO5bgiqsGcgL5nETmCm%2BbLHSd6Pirt3LsIuQ4g9DNw0%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180109/aed7f435/attachment.html>