<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul<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'>Testing centres could report the energy consumption separately it the customer wants to pay for the tests involved.<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'>It is that simple. The only thing that is going on and on is the desire by some to figure out a way to give a stove energy credits for energy it has consumed. <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 personally see no problem working out the energy content of remaining fuel – just measure it. E450 is one method and probably not a very precise one. Let’s see what trials bring OK?<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'>Stove tests used to date have always tried to estimate the energy content of fuel remaining. There is nothing new here. But there problem, as you know, is that the energy consumption was being used as a proxy for the fuel consumption. <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'>Anytime you want to know the energy consumption, just ask and it shall be given. If the test involves expense, expect a small additional bill. <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'>What change do you propose as being needed for char producing stoves? Stoves have always produced char and the energy content was calculated (by estimation). If there is a better method, not problem. I think a bomb calorimeter is a reliable method. It is not available to everyone. E450 sounds like a better method, unless it is so tied to a particular type of stove as to make it useless for others. There are many types of stove producing various amounts of char of varying quality/energy content. Whatever method we invest in should be nearly universal, in order to be useful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> ...snipped...</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>When it comes to mass of fuel consumed, the energy in it and so on, the lab is agnostic. There are no holy </span><o:p></o:p></pre></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>stoves and there are no holy fuels. The stove does what it does, emits what it emits, and consumes </span><o:p></o:p></pre></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>what it consumes. We just report it. Don’t shoot the messenger.</span><o:p></o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Paul replies: Sorry, but the testing centers do NOT report BOTH the FUEL consumption and the ENERGY consumption. A major point of the Shields E450c method is to show the ENERGY consumption and the ENERGY efficiency. It is the people who only talk about FUEL (and who avoid acknowledging the difference concerning energy because of the energy in the charcoal) who are the ones making the problem continue on and on and on. <br><br>When the statement finally comes about testing procedures and reporting for pyrolytic stoves that produce charcoal, I hope that the distinction between energy and fuel is clearly made AND is reported in each report of a stove tested.<br><br>Although gasifiers have existed for a long time, gasifier STOVES (especially those that yield charcoal) have not. So some changes are needed in the reporting of the results.<br><br>Paul<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>