<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Ranyee, Crispin, and all,<br>
<br>
Thank you both for the stimulating exchanges of messages. I
think (hope) we are moving along the right track.<br>
<br>
I want to pick up on only one sub-theme, about having ACTUAL DATA
SETS for us to use in the comparisons of testing procedures.
(that is NOT about comparisons of the specific stoves that were
tested.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> Ranyee wrote: <br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>Part of the discussion should be around
what is the minimal set of data that the testing centers
need to share to facilitate collaboration and harmonization
among the different centers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> Crispin responded:<br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">I can open that conversation by suggesting that
if a claim is publicly made the raw data (in the form of the
reporting spreadsheet on which the calculations were made)
is also made public. It may be possible to limit it to that
information needed to recalculate the result based on what
we now know are problem areas (like the treatment of fuel
moisture, charcoal remaining, water volume processed,
averaging procedures, conceptual considerations and
procedural relevance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Having that information would a) allow us to
recalculate the old WBT’s in the Stove Inventory into a modern
form, b) determine what the IWA tiers would be if they were
set using current understanding, c) permit mathematically
correct averaging of multiple tests to give and ‘average
performance’, and d) permit the validation of tools that can
be incorporated into an ISO Standard of stove testing methods.</span></blockquote>
As far as I know (and I do NOT specialize in this), very few sets
of RAW data are available for examination. I am not talking
about the inventory of tested stoves. We do NOT need specific
stoves to be named. Could be "RS23B" for some Rocket Stove. We
have my partial data set for the Quad 2 (emissions were not
measured) and it might be "TS32J" for TLUD Stove with a code
number. Let's have some more data sets.<br>
<br>
1. If I am wrong, let's have a listing of the addresses for the
data. <br>
<br>
2. Can the EPA data from Jetter be released with code names
only? Do testing centers ONLY test for clients who have paid
and therefore own their data? Do all of the clients decline to
let the testing centers put a few examples of full sets of raw
data up for examination? Although some For-Profit companies
might not want to share (or need shareholder approval?), what
about the data for the stoves of all of the NGOs and
Not-For-Profit entities that have their stoves tested? Or what
about raw data that was collected with funding from public
money? Maybe the Freedom of Information Act can be applied to
data files for stoves tested in America.<br>
<br>
3. Or should we just pretend that we can have great confidence in
the existing testing? That will lead to chaos eventually.<br>
<br>
4. We either have test results that will bear re-evaluation, or
we do not. We do not need thousands of data sets. But a
representative number for the major types of stoves would be
appreciated. This should be a PRIORITY of the GACC that makes a
major statement of being technology neutral. <br>
<br>
I sympathize with Ranyee who is in the "hot seat" about this and
is the spokesperson of the GACC about testing matters. But the
GACC top administration needs to address this issue of having raw
data sets available for examination (but leaving off the names of
the stoves and stove makers).<br>
<br>
Ranyee wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>Paul also raised the issue of recalculating
older test results so they can be comparable or harmonized.
I think another issue to consider is how much have
technologies changed and are the older test results still
applicable. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, having "older test results" possibly deemed NON-applicable
would really shake up the stove evaluation situation. How old is
"old"? Are the EPA Jetter-run tests already "old?" We had
better look into this NOW (action to start in April) than to have
the testing issues haunt us for months and years and millions and
millions of dollars spent for "technology neutral" assistance that
does not back the right horses in the races. <br>
<br>
That is frightening!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 4/5/2013 9:09 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:053501ce326b$c04f8750$40ee95f0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;}
/* 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;}
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.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
Ranyee<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks
for joining the conversation on the Stoves list. We seem to
get more response than on the other site which I understand
is under revision. I appreciate your taking the time to read
the relevant messages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>We’re looking forward to seeing the
detailed proposed protocol. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">The Tool Testing Toolbox is an approach to
providing an agreed science platform. We could have an ISO
standard that says if you want to measure thermal efficiency
between the fire and the pot here is how to determine it…
If that method is used, the result is valid, no matter what
the pot size, the fuel used and the power level at the
time. It is an investigative tool. As all these factors can
be normalized the results are directly comparable. It is
however necessary to report the results in a way that allows
a skilled reader to understand what the result claims. At
the moment readers are rarely aware of what the ‘efficiency’
number really contains. Most readers think it refers to the
amount of raw fuel that will be consumed performing the task
described. The UNFCCC has this concept written into the GEF
and CDM methodology. But a WBT efficiency does state the
relative fuel consumption. In fact the raw fuel used is not
reported. It reports the energy absorbed by the pot based
(only) on water metrics divided by a mass of dry fuel that
has the same energy content as the energy calculated to have
been generated by the fire. This is a very different figure
from the dry fuel consumption, and different from the raw
fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">As the purpose of many projects is to ‘save raw
fuel’ the confusion results in people not getting what they
are paying for (program pays, fuel is not saved).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>For all protocol development, we at the
Alliance have been emphasizing the need for review by broad
stakeholders – regional testing centers, manufacturers,
investors, and consumer representatives as much as possible,
so we hope that the review process can continue with this
effort. At one point Crispin had questioned whether this
process leads to independent review. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">It is not really dependent on my opinion. I
work for several large clients who want to know if they are
getting what they are paying for, basically. I am not
allowed to provide that answer. It is evaluated
independently.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>I think independence is a tricky concept,
because it’s unclear who the independence would be from. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Because it is to be independent, large clients
can engage protocol review organisations like TUV Rhineland,
protocol development assisting organisations like the Desert
Research Unit or scientific defenders of the community like
SGS which rates performance for most stove introduced into
the EU. None of these organisations are involved in the GACC
protocol development process. They are professional
scientific organisations. They have experience at experiment
design and protocol review methods.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>But I think a better way to achieve the
broad goal is to have inclusive and public review (if you
have enough voices, the result is somewhat independent from
everyone). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">In the past the internal review of test methods
has not produced reliable results. Because of this, all
tests conducted in the past require corrections ‘forward’ to
be able to know what the actual test result was. I have had
to develop methods for doing this because people have
existing tests and they want to know ‘what the real answer
is’. Money is changing hands based on the answer so it is an
important calculation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Some test results can be updated easily if the
raw data is available. If a spreadsheet with the raw data is
available the correction is pretty straightforward. It
cannot provide all necessary metrics because the WBT
experiment is not constructed to provide them, but major
corrections can be made ‘forward’. What does not work is to
try to introduce the calculation errors into current valid
tests as a way of generating a ‘backward’ comparison. The
reason is that old tests bias the result unequally not only
between stoves but between fuels and fuel moisture. It is
very likely that such a recalculation provides misleading
comparisons. This means that taking a 4.2.1 test result and,
based on the raw data, recalculating a 4.1.2 or 3.1 result
gives a different output. The emissions and performance will
be ‘significantly’ different – i.e. statistically
detectable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>I think the issues to especially focus on
will be ones that impact the various stakeholders - testing
feasibility, resources needed (time, financial, equipment),
clarity for communicating results, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">I think I have addressed these issues above. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>As Dean mentioned, we are focused on how to
integrate field considerations into best practices for
testing and standards. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">That is good. When the discussion is broadened
we can assess the proposals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>We had much discussion at the Forum (notes
are currently being polished), and it will continue. It
will be important to work out how we fit the different
protocols together, when which protocol is used, based on
context, resources, goals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">What I am proposing is that we agree first on
the concepts needed to generate a relevant and reasonably
precise and intercomparable test result. After we have to
concepts agreed, we can agree on what the relevant metrics
are. After that: the definitions of the metrics and in which
contexts they are valid. The application of measurement
methods requires that certain things be measured and
reported. For thermal efficiency, from a fuel supply point
of fuel, we may have ‘fuel efficiency’. From a fire-to-pot
point of view, we may have ‘energy efficiency’. From an
engineering perspective we may have ‘heat transfer
efficiency’. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">For each of these there are normal engineering
methods which have been widely agreed. We may need to adapt
the terminology a bit but the underlying principles are the
same.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">One we have a number of ‘tools’ (the package of
understandings and definitions for one metric) we can
conduct a valid test in segments. Segments can be identified
either by experience or rigorous analysis. It is not very
difficult. A standard or common garden variety WBT has
efficiency, energy consumption and power measurements, for
example. Simmering is a low power task at a power level
suited to the stove and the pot. They are separated because
one cannot get the same metrics from simmering as one can
get from boiling (because of the lack of a change in
enthalpy – heat content – of a ‘perfect simmer’). Thus two
tools are required each with its own definitions. Ant WBT
performed using validated tools would provide a valid result
– for any stove-pot-fuel combination and can be reported as
such.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Because stove programmes are becoming more and
more dependent on field observations (actual performance) we
can expect more pressure to develop valid tools that will
work in a wide variety of circumstances. Indeed we are under
that pressure right now. The reason is people are tired of
funding failed stove programmes. They fail because a) people
don’t want to use the products or b) the product does last
long enough to be worth buying or c) the product does not
perform as claimed or d) the product is not flexible enough
to cook the foods and perform the tasks needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">If the test is not culturally relevant it will
not provide meaningful comparisons. The idea that hundreds
of protocols will be needed is not, however, correct.
Scientific tools are already provided for normalising
results.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>How would newly developed procedures
supplement, partially replace, replace existing protocols?
Of course, this is also related to the goal for
harmonization as raised in the IWA. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Whatever process is used, the methods used in
the past have not provided useable tools. That is why I am
awake long into the night corresponding with other
practitioners trying to rush to market tests that are valid
for the circumstances were we are working. We are frequently
asked for ‘WBT’ results and ‘the real answers’. That is an
indictment, not of our motivations, but of our achievements
to date. It is a bit embarrassing!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>Paul also raised the issue of recalculating
older test results so they can be comparable or harmonized.
I think another issue to consider is how much have
technologies changed and are the older test results still
applicable. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">My concern is that the Stove Inventory is a
chart of performance measured with tools that provide
dramatically different results for the same stove. I am not
exaggerating. If the use of the output number is to trade
Carbon offsets (and it is) then reporting that a 19% fuel
efficient stove is 54% efficient constitutes malpractice.
That is the view of the people paying the piper.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>We are also planning discussions to map out
a strategy for integrating future testing results and data
together, especially to communicate stove performance (IWA
Tiers) that has been independently evaluated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">That is strongly seconded by me!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">>Part of the discussion should be around
what is the minimal set of data that the testing centers
need to share to facilitate collaboration and harmonization
among the different centers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">I can open that conversation by suggesting that
if a claim is publicly made the raw data (in the form of the
reporting spreadsheet on which the calculations were made)
is also made public. It may be possible to limit it to that
information needed to recalculate the result based on what
we now know are problem areas (like the treatment of fuel
moisture, charcoal remaining, water volume processed,
averaging procedures, conceptual considerations and
procedural relevance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Having that information would a) allow us to
recalculate the old WBT’s in the Stove Inventory into a
modern form, b) determine what the IWA tiers would be if
they were set using current understanding, c) permit
mathematically correct averaging of multiple tests to give
and ‘average performance’, and d) permit the validation of
tools that can be incorporated into an ISO Standard of stove
testing methods.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>