<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.Default, li.Default, div.Default
{mso-style-name:Default;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I really appreciate the care you have taken over the past month to understand some of the intricacies of the stove testing issues that need our collective attention. I know you have been concentrating on combustion and hardware issues more than test calculations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>1. The FULL data from the Quad 2 tests were provided to stimulate discussions, and I am delighted that Crispin and some others are digging into it as an example of the testing procedures. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Without access to the raw data and the spreadsheet it is really not possible to get much. There are different versions of the analysis sheets and one has to first look to see what version of which test spreadsheet is in front of you before you start looking for meaning in the numbers. Just last month I was presented with a test result from a country to the north which was done recently using WBT 3.0. That was a surprise. We do not really know much as a result. Plus the CO emissions was given in ppm with no compensation for dilution so we have no idea what the CO mass was, nor the combustion efficiency. We have a long way to go.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>I do not run the rests and do not participate in the definition of the test procedures. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is what makes the example so helpful. A char making TLUD enhances the obviousness of the most of the errors which were always there, but which are not as large for ‘whole fuel burning’ stoves. I did not conduct the test and I had no say in which version of the spreadsheet was used. The test was paid for, and the test protocol was followed well. Did Paul get his money’s worth? If not, is the fault of the lab? I think not. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Maybe other stove manufacturers could release (or point to current availability of) full results of tests on their stoves. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That would be very helpful. I have had difficulty obtaining the spreadsheets used. Only a snapshot of final numbers are provided. I should point out for the record that Paul provided the original spreadsheet immediately and a copy of the test report. The spreadsheet is the version uploaded to the pciaonline site after the beginning of June and before the version dated the 19<sup>th</sup>of June. As far as I can tell, it does not contain any errors I know of.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For those wishing to check which (recent) version they have, look for the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>May 2012 (or so) the water mass in the pots 2, 3 and 4 in the Hot Start section have the formulas in lines AE12 and AL12 down to AE14 and AL14 reversed. This is only noticeable if you were using more than one pot.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Early June 2012, that error was corrected.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>19 June 2012, the two tabs “TEST 1” and “TEST 2” are reversed. There is an incorrect ‘2’ in the formula in RESULTS i30 that should be a ‘3’. If you download the file fresh, now, you should correct the formula in case someone uses the outputs of that line.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>2. I accept Crispin's position about the difference between FUEL efficiency and ENERGY efficiency, but with this observation: Crispin said something like: "Fuel from the woodpile" or "wood from the fuel pile" should be what is counted. TLUDs take in fuel and operate best if the full batch of fuel is pyrolyzed, leaving behind char that is certainly not like the original fuel. That original fuel is gone!!<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Your considered opinion on this point is well taken. When drafting a new protocol it is this sort of first principles that should apply. Jim also agrees on this point, if you have read his contribution.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Therefore, if "fuel put into the stove, minus that SAME fuel that can be saved" is the amount considered in the FUEL efficiency, then a TLUD could use more fuel that other stoves. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would not at this time like to generalise. It is quite possible that a TLUD making significant amounts of char could do a very respectable job compared with an open fire. To paraphrase, “I have not yet begun to design!” </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> Let us not assume that future stoves will necessarily perform the way current ones do.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>3. This could imply that the stove was operated until the end of pyrolysis even if that was many minutes after the complete WBT was conducted. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am not making that assumption tough it is one possibility. For example a stove may have a fire shut-off mechanism capable of extinguishing the flame within a short time. I do not want to anticipate what might be invented. Because the nature of a test to get a particular metric requires the fire to be stopped at the end, it is reasonable to make a plan to do so. There is a method called the Burn-Out Test which was specifically designed to test stoves with pellet-like fuel that cannot easily be shut down and which in any case contain all sorts of half-burned bits of fuel. Dr Taylor rated that method at about 15% error.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>PARTIAL SOLUTION that creates havoc is that the SAME stove could be operated identically with the amount of fuel carefully calculated to have pyroylsis end within a minute after the WBT was completed. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Although this is possible, it is not necessary. The performance of any task like stir-frying, water heating or fish drying can be measured in a couple of ways. I won’t bore you with them now. The penalty for an un-extinguishable or uncontrollable fire is real. They are, after all, dislikeable traits.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Fill a TLUD with 3 kg of fuel for one test run, and then do it with 1 kg for the second test run. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This needs to be considered. I don’t see the obvious advantage through this explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>In other words, Crispin's correct statement (that the original loading of 1600 grams of wood) is NOT related to the amount of FUEL used up until the time of the completion of the WBT.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Actually, it is. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The test of the Quad 2 was conducted in 2 phases wherein the raw fuel was loaded twice (the amounts are indicated) and both burned well past the completion of the relevant section. The test as not completed in one go, in other words. The remaining fuel was discounted to obtain the fuel burned heat value (for getting the thermal efficiency, fire to water). The total raw fuel needed to conduct a complete WBT I calculated from the mass of raw fuel burned for each section and the char produced in that process. The average for the three tests was 1550 g of raw fuel with a moisture content of 15%. If the stove was loaded with 1600 g it would in in all likelihood complete the hot start and simmer sections in one go.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>4. Because TLUDs can utilize so many different types of dry biomass EQUALLY WELL, and because reduction of burning of WOOD is so important, then what if the test was done with maize cobs or with stalks or with briquettes from true "waste" or with inedible Jatropha seeds? Then the following would be true:<br> "No fuel was taken from the woodpile" and "No wood was taken from the fuel pile."<br><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>So the impact of WOODY fuel savings means the TLUDs are the clear winners!!! <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nice try, but no! The fuel pile includes all biomass, not just wood. It is quite reasonable to point out what fuels can be burned to potential customers. They may have a lot of non-woody biomass available.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Remember, the definition that the fuel is to be some uniform type of WOOD (to ensure comparability between the stoves) is what has forced the TLUDs to be tested with wood. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>There is no such definition. Anything that is biomass is included in the definition of a biomass fuel. We are not trying to cause problems with certain stove types. It is just that we are speaking from a first principles perspective. Anything that can burn is fuel. Just about any biofuel can be burned in a variety of stoves if mixed with something else. When the mass of fuel burned is recorded, the test does not care what the source is, only the operator. A test must be ‘fuel blind’ save for the mass, the moisture content, the LHV and the ultimate analysis. It is people who make political decisions about fuel types, not the test.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>How well I remember the Stove Camps at Aprovecho (I have attended seven thus far) where the kiln-dried Douglas fir was the only acceptable fuel for the testing.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That was an excellent example of why the emissions of a stove must be obtained using the fuel that is appropriate and typical of the implementation arena. Further, the burn cycle should be typical of the intended use. Cecil Cook will be providing much more on this topic between January and March 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>5. About testing of char-making stoves, that include the TLUDs: <br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Granted that char is not the original fuel.<br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>But the remaining char can have substantially greater value on a weight basis (and perhaps in other ways also) than the biomass that was the feedstock. And that char can be for A) burning or for B) biochar (soil amendment) or for C) carbon sequestration/climate change/carbon credits. AND B and C can be cumulative!!!! Or D) it could be thrown away.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>These are good ‘social’ or ‘political’ points that are not related to the engineering metrics of a stove. The test methods must remain aloof from ideologies. The reason is that if people think the ‘fuel consumption’ number represents the fuel consumption of the stove, then we owe it to the people to ensure the label matches the facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>So, concerning FUEL effeciency, W H O R E A L L Y C A R E S what the numbers are from the WBT xxx.yy?<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Policy managers care because they are directing the distribution of very large sums of money and they have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure they are getting what they pay for. That is why I spend so much time trying to correct the obvious and subtle errors on the test methods. I am not asking everyone to get involved. It can be pretty boring. But anyone making performance claims should understand the implications and limits of those claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>but "do not crucify the TLUDs on a cross of carbon."<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is a good line, but still a diversion. When you have a TLUD that makes char and still outperforms a three stone fire, a built in stove and a charcoal brazier, you will be singing a different tune. All that is required is to keep your eye on the ball and not misrepresent the performance (if possible).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Fix (adjust, not "fix" as in illegal horseracing) the tests any way that allows for true differences between stoves to be observed. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have been using the term ‘hardened’. The ‘true differences’ have to be rooted in defined metrics and standard units if it is to be broadly accepted. Having 5 or 50 or 500 people agree to use a certain test method does not make it a valid one. A test method might have dozens of correct procedures and calculations but include one fatal flaw that invalidates the final result. The dozens that are correct do not confer salvation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Just please do not have testing that poisons the waterhole for those who are working with TLUD and other micro-gasifier stoves.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Well, that is well put. The current WBT calculations do exactly that. There are several ‘fatal flaws’ which means the final number(s) misrepresent the true performance of the product. Some stoves are accidentally ‘optimised’ to perform well on a given test but this does not improve their actual performance when viewed through the lens of a more rigorous test.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Professional chemical engineer Hugh McLaughlin and I are examining the issues of testing, and output (if any) should be ready before ETHOS in late January. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is really good news. Please don’t mix the political and social side of fuel source and external matters into the test procedure. A stove works how it works and consumes what it consumes. A well designed, precise and accurate test brings the unvarnished truth. Don’t shoot the messenger.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin in the city of gold (goud as in Gauteng)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>