<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: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=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://12586/"><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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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 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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Ron<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'>I am not sure why you use the word ‘rebuttal’. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>></span> a. I am going to wait for release of the 72 slides from the EPA webinar to answer much of this<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 think that is a good idea.<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> - since I am mostly trying to defend the material there, which is at great odds with Crispin's approach (which I still do not understand)<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'>With respect to the issue of fuel remaining after a test, we are in agreement. The slides may explain it to your satisfaction.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span> b. I note that Crispin did not rebuttals one of my points, <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'>Rebut??<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> [RWL4: In the first sentence, assuming that Crispin's "cannot" includes "is not designed to", I would interchange the terms "under" and "over". This is getting back to the issue of apples and oranges - where I believe there is some validity in adding them - if/when one is consciously attempting to maximize both, they are expressed in the same (energy) units, and are calculated with equivalent formulae. <o:p></o:p></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'>Both what? The apples are stoves that can burn the remaining fuel. The oranges are stoves that cannot. If someone has a stove that can use the fuel remaining and chooses not to, that is a feature of the user, not the stove and does not affect the rating given to the stove. We don’t rate what people 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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span> To repeat - there is nothing about the present EPA/GACC approach which supports Crispin's claim that "<i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For stoves that cannot burn any of the fuel remaining, the current methods over-report the system efficiency and under-report the fuel consumption."</span></i><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is true that no specific mention was made of the implications of how the fuel is considered, only that it matters. If you have a stove that uses 1 kg per firing and claim that it only uses ˝ a kg, then the fuel efficiency is over-reported, not so?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><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><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I feel it best to get at this, using the Jetter slides. This is a key part of the disagreement between Crispin and myself. <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'>At least there is no disagreement between me and Jim.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>…I have no idea what this proposed Indonesian stove test will look like, except that charcoal production seems certain to be hard to find in the final reports .</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><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'>I have explained only certain portions of them. They are designed to work out early in the assessment if the stoves are powerful enough to interest the prospective users. That assured, we examine the fuel efficiency and the emissions per MJ in the pot on high power, same as the IWA though we use a three step power level cycle, not two like a WBT. <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 pretty much covers it. There are two classes of product: those that cook and those that only heat water.<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'>>></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What happens outside <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[<u>RWL: Char is </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>intentionally</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> being made inside some stoves.] </span></u><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We all aware of that. Jim was at pains to explain that this does not affect the calculation of the fuel required to feed the stove.<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 said this before and there is not <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[</span></b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>RWL: fortunately, others disagree with you.] <o:p></o:p></span></u></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'>Which others? What other interpretation would there be? That the energy in the char remaining is not really there? What else can you do in the calculation of fuel consumption that would be affected by the amount of fuel consumed? How do you and others who think different feel the energy in the charcoal should be treated when rating the char making stove?<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'>>What a stove does with the fuel fed into it has to be quantified separately [<u>RWL: it can be separate, it can also be part of] <o:p></o:p></u></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'>Part of what? Other than reporting it (which we are) what else is there to 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='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>Even if there is char deliberately produced, not <u>[RWLa: why not?] </u>all the char is useable and it is in any case a sub-section of the remnants/outcome of combustion. <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 one saying ‘do not produce char’. Go ahead and produce char to your heart’s content. I am not worried by production of char. I am just measuring it. I also see how much fuel is needed to feed the stove.<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 ash also has many purposes. If you wanted <u>[RWLb: I do.] </u>, we could report the mass that looks like char and the mass that looks like ash. <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'>Well we do too and so does Jim. Are you contented now?<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, as you say, lets people decide afterwards what the implications of them are. I think the more important point as Jim made clear <u>[RWLc: Jim is </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>reporting what char-makers want - you are not.]</span></u><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is in error. We reporting exactly the same thing which is the mass of char remaining. Would you like to have the heat value of that char reported as well?<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'>is that the energy value of those remnants is not important <u>[RWLd: I never heard Jim say this.] <o:p></o:p></u></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 heat value of char that is left over is not important if that cannot be burned in the same stove, and he said this with respect to the calculation of fuel consumed, as did I also.<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'>>><b>[RWL2: Same issue. This seems to imply that char will either have to be consumed or only be considered a loss. No third option? Was this your </b></span><b><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>intent?</span></b><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>It is not just the char. Anything left over that cannot be used in the stove on the next replication is a loss, whether we dress up the language or not. Some stoves cannot even use totally dried wood. The intent is to report the performance of the stove being tested. Nothing else. Combustors and heat exchangers have been tested for centuries and it is strange to see the slow speed at which very ordinary methods are applied to domestic stoves by those most intimately creating and evaluating them. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[RWLe: You have to be more specific. I see nothing missing from what Jim reported. You answered neither of </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>my questions</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>.]]</span></u><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I see no third option for the question as to whether or not the stove can burn the fuel remaining after a test – whether that be processed wood, char or anything else. It either can or cannot. I did answer your question, I did not give a third alternative. Perhaps you can provide one. Which ‘intent’ are you referring to? The intent is to know whether or not the remaining fuel can be used in the next replication. If it cannot, it is not allowable to consider its heat content as the equivalent of fuel not burned. Jim agrees with this.<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'>You have for more than two year tried to find a way to credit stoves that produce char with special consideration in a way that the char heat content somehow credits the stove. Have I got that right? When rating the stove we want to know the fuel consumption – how much additional fuel it takes to feed it for another cycle. It a stove produces a left over fuel that it can burn in the next cycle, then it is treated as unburned fuel. If a user then instead chose to use it for something else (like fertilisation) that is their choice. It is not a function of the stove. If the stove cannot burn the fuel remaining then the initial fuel load will have to be considered ‘consumed’ because it is. It is as simple as that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is of course a little more complicated than that. All stoves burning biomass make some ‘char’. The problem was that the char was being arbitrarily <u>[RWLf: Not so arbitrary.] </u>assigned a heat value <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I beg to differ. Heat value was assigned (originally through the WBT 3 series, a heat value of 1.5 times the LHV, whatever the actual heat value was. Later it was assigned a value of 29.5 MJ/kg. Those are both arbitrary heat values. Jim has been reporting the actual value of the char remaining in his later reports and it varies quite a bit. Imagine the difference between pine char and rich hull char, per kg. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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'>>… and also the stove was being credited for char produced as if it was unburned raw fuel when reporting the fuel consumption, which clearly it is not <u>[RWLg: The char was far from "wasted" in the minds of many stove makers (and users) It seems illogical to make believe it wasn't produced.]</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am pointing to the working of the heat transfer efficiency calculation. The reason it is considered is because it was produced. Of course it was produced. We are discussion what to do with the heat value of it. If it is not ‘fuel’ for the next cycle, it is ‘waste’ as far as that stove is concerned. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>RWLh: I am happy with what I saw in the Jetter slides -nothing </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>needs correction -</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> and believe I speak for the char-making stove community. <o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You speak for no one else, same as me. There are many things that still need correction and many of the things I have asked to be corrected have been implemented and I am very happy about that. If you did not know there were things wrong you might not have noticed the corrections. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Do you know anyone working with </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>char-making</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> stoves who likes your proposed </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>approach?]</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></u></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 sure if anyone working with char making stoves has expressed an opinion. I work with char making stoves and have for 10 years. I like it just fine because it correctly assesses the drawn-down of fuel from the available resource. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The fact that some stoves are making huge amounts of char (relative to the total energy available to start with) brought this to a head when stoves were claiming a ‘fuel efficiency’ of 50% while consuming as much or even more fuel than the baseline stoves which were 15% efficient. Clearly something was wrong with the calculation method. There was. We are agreed on how to correct it. Jim covered it very well. <u>[RWLi: But it seems you are going to do </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>something</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> very different</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>With respect the treatment of fuel remaining after a test, particularly char which is now bring produced in large quantities relative to the available raw fuel at the beginning of the test, we are doing exactly the same thing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would like to see the exact numbers being used here.]I t would be difficult to claim that a stove that consumes 50 kg of fuel a week does not, when it does. <u>[RWLj: You are stuck on a stove doing only one thing - a stove <b>can</b> be designed to both cook and make char. And make money (not spend money) </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>while</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> doing so.]</span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><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-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am not stuck on one thing but it seems you are. You are trying to credit a stove that makes char with some form of economic benefit that should be, in your opinion, reflected in the performance evaluation. A broader discussion of the economics of a stove and how it fits into the family economy is warranted and wise. It is however not a function of a fuel consumption test to determine the economics of family. That is an assessment of the family or the family’s economy. Each portion of that economy should be examined for its impact, costs, opportunity costs and benefits. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Char making has an opportunity cost, quite a large one actually. Suppose you have two stoves of the same fuel efficiency. Taking the remaining fuel and selling it instead of using it generates some income and must be offset with procurement of new fuel. Paul O has pointed out that in Vietnam there is a positive gain in doing this (it makes a profit). Good. Do it. It is not part of the fuel consumption analysis, it is part of a business idea that might appeal to the user. The user could then look for stoves that use less fuel to produce the same mass of char as an output. The would look that up on the fuel consumption line and the mass of char produced line. Simple. Clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As to what happens to the char produced, that is outside the stove <u>[RWLk: Denied again.] The char production is not outside.]<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You are misreading. Try again. What happen to the char is outside the stove. Making char happens inside the stove. After it is made, the used makes a choice about what to do with it., The stove does not. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>I have settled on ‘system efficiency’ as perhaps the best way to describe the raw fuel in and the work performed out. That ratio is the system efficiency. <u>[RWLl - all sounds great if your stove makes no char.]<o:p></o:p></u></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'>It also makes a lot of sense when your stove does make char because we are not rating the family or regional economy. We assessing exactly what the stove consumes and delivers to the pots. If someone made charcoal and did no cooking at all (a pretty good deal if there was a profit in it) the cooking efficiency would be zero. The fuel consumption would be the mass of fuel consumed per cycle. This is not complicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b> I am still not understanding either what Crispin's new method is or what is wrong with what Jim proposed (which also is "new"), and hope Crispin will explain what is wrong with either/both.<o:p></o:p></b></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'>As for the treatment of char remaining there is no difference. Have I said that enough times yet? As for the conducting of the stove tests, the replications, the re-use of fuel and the determination of the heat flux rate, those are new.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>><u>[RWLm: Many of us want this char to never see a stove again - to go into the ground - for CO2 sequestration purposes. <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>No problem. Take it out of the stove and place it in the ground and sequester the CO2. The fuel needed to produce that char will be considered ‘unburned fuel’ if the stove could have consumed it in a later cycle, and considered ‘consumed fuel’ if it cannot.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Why can't (</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>shouldn't) a </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>stove test </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>accommodate</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> that desire</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>?] <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Stoves done have desires. People do. We can rate the people and we can rate the stoves. What people choose to do is not a function of the stove. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>It still boils down to how much new fuel the stove needs from the available supply, on average, per replication. <u>[RWLn: Which I understood the 72 slides to do - for the char-making stove that the webinar was about.]</u></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:0mm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Correct.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><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'>If it is designed not to, then it cannot, right? <u>[RWLo: No, not right. Every char-making stove I have ever seen could burn the remaining char - and do so badly.] </u> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We need to decide whether the char remaining is fuel or not. The test is not of the opinion of the producer, but of the stove. Suppose a stove can burn 10% of the char produced in the next go-round, and 100% of all dried wood. That is not an idle claim, it has to be demonstrated. One of the beauties of the triplicate test with fuel remaining (which is new and which we will apply) is that the emissions from the stove will be measured while burning fuel it is claimed the stove can burn. It is up to the manufacturer to make claims on this matter, and then demonstrate the stove can do it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If it turns that for all practical purposes the stove cannot burn the fuel, or the emissions are dreadful when doing so, then it is not really ‘useable’. This is simple and fair. The amount of new fuel that has to be added per cycle is the fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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'>‘Cannot’ is the right word. We <u>[RWLp: You. Not the char-making stove community.]<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You are entitled to your opinion and I will consider it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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 was intrigued by the idea that we might mix char from pellets into new pellets and burn some of the char. Some stoves might be able to use less fuel that way. We have to consider all design and operational possibilities. <u>[RWLq: I doubt we will have any difficulty with this aspect. The issue is when we don't want to burn the produced char.]</u></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is not a measure of stove performance. That is a user choice with costs and benefits. The stove stands alone in this.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>Regarding the heat transfer efficiency, to get the closest number you can, the pot material and mass must be considered, the unburned CO too, and the lid should be on the pot [<u>RWLr: I am with EPA on this - forget the lid - much more error </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>introduced</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> with varying lid fits. Many stoves are used to evaporate water.]]</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is quite incorrect and should not be repeated. The fit of the lid has ZERO influence on the performance. Removing the lid creates greater unmeasured losses and causes the heat transfer efficiency to be underreported. Stoves that evaporate water should have a lid on as it increases the efficiency measurably. You can check this quite easily by running a simple test with a lid on and off.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Let me state that again: <b>leaving the lid off a pot does not increase the evaporation rate – it decreases it</b>, and it decreases it by approximately 0.37 watts per square cm of open water surface for any constant power input rate. That figure is based on a 100 degree water temperature in a 20 degree room. In many cases (rolling boil) the loss of evaporating power is greater because the water surface is larger. The water cools by IR radiation when the lid is off.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><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 another completely different approach I can explain at another time <u>[RWLs: Sorry to hear this. When will we hear?]</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I brought it to this forum before and no one took any interest. It involves calculating the heat transferred at two closely spaced power levels. It is very accurate. Most people don’t care. <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'>>>Important: the heat transfer efficiency does not represent the fuel consumption. Relative heat transfer efficiencies do not represent relative fuel consumption. Keep that in mind. <u>[RWLt: I haven't heard anyone worry about getting fuel consumption badly wrong.] </u></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Have you heard of the fuss that was generated by the test of Roger Samson’s rice hull gasifier when its emission and fuel consumption were misstated so severely there were threats implied?<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 was the case of Paul A’s Quad 2 stove tested at CREEC which was discussed at length here (thanks Paul) which reported that it ‘used 636 g of dry fuel to complete a WBT when in fact it was 1350 g. That is ‘badly wrong’. It was in presenting that case that Jim agreed that we had to change the method applied to char remaining in stoves that can’t burn it.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This refers to stoves that produce char and cannot <u>[RWLu: Or felt it better to not.] <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You cannot anthropomorphise stove. They do not have feelings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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'>> [RWLw: And I think you are missing everything about the beauty of being able to make char ( to count "oranges") while you are counting "apples". <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>There is perhaps a misunderstanding on your part what the apples and oranges refer to. Se above for clarification.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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'>>As near as I can tell, you want to make believe there are no valid cases where oranges (char) exists.]<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'>Char exists in nearly all biomass stoves. I am not sure what the intention of that remark is other than to guess what ‘my intentions’ are. My intention is to end the misrepresentation of the fuel consumption of stoves. Period. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:#1F497D'>>></span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have given descriptions of a couple of the elements of the assessment method. One is the heat flux rate – the rate in Watts that a stove delivers heat into a pot’s heated surface. This will be assessed. <u>[RWLx: And is now. Energy (joules) is given and is more fundamental than Watts - the product of power (which varies a lot during a "boil") and time.]</u> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Joules is energy. Watts is the rate of energy generation or absorption per second. The heat flux rate is the rate of heat per second per unit area. Because it is factored twice is it represented by a character with a ‘double prime’ notation, in this case Q’’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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'>><u>[RWLy: I don't detect an answer to my question - what does this new test look like? (in detail)]</u></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It consists of a careful measurement of the heat gained by a pot while operation the stove at maximum power. The heated surface area has a definition and the number of Joules absorbed is divided by the number of seconds and the area in sq cm. It does not require a measurement to be made of the fire itself. It is a way of expressing the cooking power for any size of 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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span></b><b>Will a char-making stove have its char output reported in any sense? </b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It will be reported as a mass of ‘what looks like char’. The reason is that there will be a small [<u>[RWLz: "</u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>small"</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>means</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> what?] </span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>bonus (as previously reported) <u>[RWLaa: Reported where?]</u> for stoves that make char while saving fuel through a higher system efficiency.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><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-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The maximum benefit available for crediting a char making stove is 10% as was explained in the paragraph below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>Suppose we have a minimum system efficiency of 45% for a particular application, and suppose you have a device that is 65% efficient (about the same as an LPG stove). That is quite a bit of fuel saved. If you were to turn that saving into a lower system efficiency (45%) plus produce some char, the stove will be credited with a slightly high figure than the 45%. It is a bit complicated to explain here (sliding scale) but it boils down to a 10% credit if you can meet the system efficiency requirement and make char at 25% (as defined in the text <u>[RWLab: What text?]</u>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The SeTAR document that has the definitions of terms used in their test methods. I believe the document is SOP 0.01<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><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 a programmatic decision, incorporated into the rating system. It does not make the stove more fuel efficient and it does not state that the stove is more fuel efficient than it actually is. It is just a <u>[RWLac: Subjective?] <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is not subjective, it is calculated and compared with the performance benchmark. The result is a pass or fail. It is a yes/no question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>There are problems remaining with the WBT and my opinion on them is in the document analysing it in detail (2008 <u>[RWLad: Can anyone point me to this?]</u>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I could send it to you if you want. It was submitted to the ETHOS discussion group. They went through it carefully. Several of the suggestions were incorporated in to the WBT 4.1. I wrote another one before the IWA meeting nearly all of which was ignored. Since then several suggestions have been accepted. Several remain.<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 use of the mass of water remaining when simmering is another and is probably unresolvable. <u>[RWLae: I put emphasis on the amount boiled away - a well known and meaningful number.] <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is a meaningless number. Let me say that again: IT IS A MEANINGLESS NUMBER because it tells us nothing about the performance of the stove. The task being performed at the time is <i>simmering</i>. Simmering is a task that does not require evaporation of water. The evaporation of water does not tell us ‘the efficiency of simmering’ which is why the IWA workshop group voted to have it removed from all stove testing. Do you still see that simmering is required by the WBT? Yes you do. It is still there and still calculated and still reported, even though the minds convened at The Hague agreed that it is not scientific, is an undefined terms, and is not useful for rating performance. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>The mass of water in the pot has virtually no effect <u>[RWLaf: No effect? hmm.] </u>on the fuel consumed or the emissions during simmering so it does not matter what the mass is. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I challenge you to show that a stove simmering two identical pots at identical power, having 2.5 litres of hot water in one and 5 litres in the other, requires twice as much fuel to summer the larger amount. Rani 1992 reported there is no effect if the pot is over half full. Other have reported it for years. But we still see the WBT dividing the fuel by the mass of water in the pot as if there was a meaningful link between these two variables. There is not. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>Thus no ‘specific’ performance metrics should be calculated for simmering (now re-named ‘low power’ though it is not low power either). <u>[RWLag: I have heard a lot of people say this was important - that cooks want to control power levels. A positive </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>feature</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> of many char-making stoves.</span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have not seen many char making stoves that had the ability to control the power to say, 25% of the high power level, then raise it back to 100% again. I am very interested to see one working.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>..Simmering does not have useful MJ in the pot because ideally, there is no change in enthalpy so no work is done. <u>[RWLah: Not the way I see it. All simmering will do some evaporation. Some work. You are never </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>going</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> to use the enthalpy of </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>water vaporization<o:p></o:p></span></u></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'>You are missing the point. The point is that the fuel consumed when simmering has nothing to do with the mass of water in the pot, and trying to work out what the heat transfer efficiency is from the evaporation of water al low power with the lid off gives completely unrepresentative values. This is easily checked by putting a pot of cold water on the stove while keeping the power level the same and heating it to 70 deg C. Compare the two efficiency numbers that result. It is not incorrect to say they are wildly different. The one heating the cold pot is correct, the one using evaporated water is incorrect. The WBT uses the latter. What else can I say? This is old news.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[RWLai: Seems like extra work, if </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>everyone uses the same pot. It could always be put back into the computations. <o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Everyone should not have to use the same pot. Some stoves have special pots. Some cook woks only. Some are huge. We cannot have people designing stoves to fit the test method, the test method must accommodate the stoves. Including the thermal mass of the pot gives more precise answers. Excluding it gives slightly incorrect answers that decline in error with increases test length. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A good place to note that at least the Chinese and Indian tests, like you, choose to only consider char as a "waste". I'll bet a beer to anyone thinking they will have that same view in 5 years. ]</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><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-right:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Char is waste it is cannot be burned in the same stove. It is not called ‘waste’ it is classes as a mechanical loss (because it is unburned).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>><u>[RWLak: It sure means something to me - it means water evaporated. <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Evaporating water is not the purpose of simmering, as noted above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It also should be a measure of how close one can keep to a desired temperature.]</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is the purpose of simmering and it is measured (in some protocols).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>As mentioned before, the specific emissions and fuel consumption when simmering are also not informative so we are not generating them. <u>[RWLal: I still don't know if anything is replacing their demise/] <o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We are not reporting any metrics that do not have a valid mathematical basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> [RWLam: "Mechanical" meaning char - which Jim is handling (well) and you are pret</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ending doesn't exist (at least in the final report)</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> ]</span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><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'>You are not following the conversation. Perhaps by this point you will understand and withdraw the remark.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>><u>[RWLan: Maybe - but not for char-making stoves where the desire is to not further consume the char.] </u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is not contributing to the conversation. I understand that you do not like it that char remaining in a stove that cannot burn it is a mechanical loss. It is also considered a mechanical loss by ANSI for a hydronic heater. And everyone else in the world who deals with burners and heat exchangers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>I say that because making additional replications of a WBT4 – Jim mentioned some large numbers in the webinar – does not improve the precision of the result. <u>[RWLao: He was(appropriately) resisting those - and not for reasons of precision. He was pointing out different types of tests (</u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>example</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> different fuels) that others have proposed.]</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>He was pointing out that the number of replications was getting large in order to satisfy various interests. We are conducting tests that include three power levels in a single test. If the test method is accurate and precise there is far less need for replication. For some fuels there is no need – LPG for example. If the test method includes conceptual errors that increase the variation between very similar tests, then the impression is given that preforming more will compensate for it. A better approach is the design better experiments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>><u>[RWLap: I am hugely impressed by how small the error bars are. I believe they do not report </u></span><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>results </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>with large error bars - they first figure how to </span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>get good test-to-test agreement - and they throw away the outliers.</span></u><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What small error bars? When did you see error bars reported from WBT’s? What you have normally seen is the test results plotted on a chart with a vertical bar connecting them, without any error bars at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0mm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0mm'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Second, how do you know the result is accurate? If systematic errors are large, then the number spat out the end is not representative of actual performance. Consider all the tests performed prior to date where the char remaining has been considered unburned dry raw fuel. For stoves where the char is thrown away, it create a large fuel consumption error. Every time. Perhaps the test result is a cluster of reproducible errors, not facts. This might explain some of the large differences between lab and field measurements.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>><u>[RWLaq: I'd suggest we stick for now to the webinar topic - char-making stoves - the only stoves I am asking about and that you are reporting tests on in a manner highly detrimental to makers, and potential users, of char-making stoves (and policy makers).]<o:p></o:p></u></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'>You have provided no evidence to back that remark. You should withdraw it.<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 think you are not listening carefully, or do not want to listen carefully, and cling to the hope that the energy content of char-making stoves will somehow be credited to the fuel consumption number even if the fuel is not useable in that stove.<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'>Unless you have something new to add this discussion will end here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin<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></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>