<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Sorry, my I-pad heard something I didn't tell it. Starting in at point 5 again. Drop the last from me.<br><br><br></div><div><br>On May 7, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Ron <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br>Crispin and list</div><div><br></div><div>See inserts below.<br><br></div><div><br>On May 7, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
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;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1509364724;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1973272882 -1764438440 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:27.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
color:windowtext;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:63.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:99.0pt;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:135.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:171.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:207.0pt;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:243.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:279.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:315.0pt;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
--></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="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Ron<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>I am disappointed we have no section in 4.2.2 to look at. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:27.0pt"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Protocol analysis is slightly more complicate than that.</span><br></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div> RWL1: Shall we best assume that we will not hear about 4.2.2, and should stop asking?<div><br><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>I am no expert in this topic, but it seems to me that it makes no difference whether the reporting says 4.9 or 5.0. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">That is because you view the numbers are being very similar and you go on to describe the difference as 2%.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> RWL2 : Nope. There are two 2%'s under discussion. Mine was the difference between. 44 and 46% below. I am advocating that if you think the 4.9 and 5.0 numbers is confusing, report both.</o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span><span class="apple-style-span"> If the answer was 44%, have I a right to demand another test, since I thought it was going to be 46%? Eventually there could be millions of dollars riding on this sort of 2% difference. (45% is the dividing line between groups 3 and 4).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">When we are discussing conceptual problems, you cannot be distracted by the numbers, you must stick to first principles. The numbers will come later. You do not start by picking methods of convenience, you start by doing things correctly whether the numbers are similar or not.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote> RWL3: I am still waiting to hear the first "conceptual problem". I like numbers, not distracted by them.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>I care only that both numbers 4.9 and 5.0 are reported and the energies involved are done correctly. I care especially that energy in char is not treated as the same sort of loss as what slipped past the pot which started with 5 liters.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The step immediately after deciding on what the mass of water boiled is the calculation of the ‘specific fuel consumption’ based on that water quantity. If you divide by the wrong number, you get the wrong answer every time.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div> RWL4: So divide by both and the average and report all three. I doubt the relative rankings of stoves will changebby a tenth of a percent. If you disagree, give us a numerical example that impacts the relative rankings of stove types.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If the 4.9 was instead 4.5, the error is much larger, do you agree?</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote> RWL5 : I don't see any error either way, if you report all the data. What is your proposed solution to this dilemma?<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>You ask at the end: <span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">"Is this cognitive dissonance or conceptual error?"</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span></span><span class="apple-style-span">I say this is neither. The question is, did the test you described give a reasonably close approximation of heat transfer that was useful in separating stoves into four groupings. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="color:#1F497D">It is a conceptual error to use 4.9. If water is missing, then it was either boiled and evaporated, or else it leaked out. Water does not ‘boil’ by itself or get boiled with energy that did not come from the fuel burned. As any practical scientist will tell you, the mass of water boiled was 5 kg or 5 litres because it is a fact and not subject to interpretation.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> RWL:6 So who is reporting this wrongly? And where?</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span></span><span class="apple-style-span">I suggest we have better things to than debate this sort of topic. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">I suggest you look a lot more closely at the concepts embedded in the WBT before sweeping anything aside.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#1f497d"> RWL7: As I have said, we need details, not generalities. I have read Raynee's exhaustive final report on the recent 4.2.1 changes, and found nothing to concern me. This example of 4.5, 4.9, and 5.0 just doesn't make much difference in a comparative, testing protocol sense, assuming everyone knows the full data. Energy efficiencies can make big differences in the GACC approach.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">The Simmering phase of the WBT (presently called the ‘Low Power phase’ as a way of evading the fact that the IWA participants called for and approved the removal of all simmering in stove tests) has a metric that is ‘specific’, meaning the emissions are given per unit of water simmered. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">When simmering, the mass of water at the beginning and at the end is substantially different – often a litre. Here is an actual example: Beginning of simmering, 4.8 litres. End of simmering, 3.8 litres. Which number should be divided into the mass of fuel burned? Which should be divided into the mass of CO emitted? 5.0, 4.8. or 3.8? How do you get a specific emission number if the mass simmered changed during the evaluation? Is it even conceptually <i>possible</i> to get such a figure? What exactly is the aspect of performance being investigated when the question is being posed?</span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> RWL8: Now I really need to know where this offense occurs in 4.2.2 or wherever. Maybe nobody is doing what you allege.</div><div> Giving such data per unit time or task sounds reasonable to me. Clearly any stove tester has to compare stoves on their emissions while doing something resembling the real world. If not "simmering", then what?</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span></span><span class="apple-style-span">An ISO process is underway. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">The ISO process has not yet commenced. One structure has been created. When it does, someone will form a committee and all interested countries will be invited to participate. If this does not happen you can expect to see resistance because the whole point of an ISO process is that the affected parties are consulted. There are 4 fast tracks for creating an ISO standard. If the consultation portion is omitted, you can expect there will be problems. There is at least $500m available for stove projects at the moment and no one wants any of it compromised by a controversial test method or questionable performance targets.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> RWL9: At Phnom Penh (I guess after you left), a top ISO person in a breakout group panelmleft me with the impression that he thought all was going well. He certainly outlined everything you have just said, but I have the distinct impression that the GACC staff know how this game is played. I still have heard only this one new allegation, which is about the reporting, not the conduct of the test. I have no idea at all what you,would do differently</o:p></span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span></span><span class="apple-style-span">We can point out big errors, but your example of 4.9 vs 5.0 doesn't rise to that level for me. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">That is because you are not approaching the problem conceptually and that is why conceptual discussion should take place before mathematical discussion (of which we have had plenty). If a lot of time is invested detailing the mathematics of an erroneous concept it will have been wasted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> RWL10: I am still,waiting for that big conceptual error. i have the feeling it relates to how the present protocol handles char production. That is why I am hanging in here.</o:p></span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span></span><span class="apple-style-span">Put that in energy efficiency terms that matter, and we should all want to continue. I repeat, though, that approach 4.2.2 is where the big league action (baseball jargon)</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">now is.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">Actually there is a lot more going on internationally than the discussion about 4.2.x. In fact there is very little discussion going on in open court about 4.2.x. There are a little groups working behind the scenes. In order to create some progress on conceptual matters and to garner public input on a real national standard I have been bringing questions to this forum to get ideas and concepts discussed because it is the largest. I thank everyone for all input on these issues. Some write privately of course.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">As far as I know, only one national standard has been independently reviewed by competent experts and approved for comparative (not absolute) performance determination. I hope that will soon rise to two. The WBT 4.x.x is not one of these though it easily could be reviewed when it is ready. </span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> RWL11: What are those countries and where do we read about their efforts? Or if they must remain secret, why?</div><div> What is not ready about GACC's 4.2.2? </div><div> What important differences are there for these three testing procedures?</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">Consider this: if the WBT is pressed into service as an ISO standard without being reviewed, some nation, wanting to know if it holds water enough to suspend their nation’s people from its beam, will have it reviewed. Suppose it contains significant conceptual, mathematical or procedural errors? What then? Word will get around. Other standards will be drafted and used instead. Why waste time? <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">What if it is culturally irrelevant? What if 90% of the cooking people do is not represented by water boiling and simmering (assuming they can keep the name ‘simmering’ out of the simmering portion)?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">This is not a time for playing games. If you want to make comments on the validity of test results you have to understand the ideas and the performance metrics. Fortunately there are some very cool heads working on this right now.</span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> RWL12: I get the impression this list will not be part of any early input. Pity. Ron</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Stoves mailing list</span><br><span></span><br><span>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address</span><br><span><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:</span><br><span><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></body></html>