<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://10535/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Crispin cc list</div><div><br></div><div> 1. Can you clarify your view on two points, which I take to be your viewpoints:</div><div><br></div><div> a. There is no way to accurately test a char-making stove (I say because you have not answered my requests for a test you would favor) .</div><div><br></div><div> b. The present 4.2.2 WBT (Water Boiling Test), used by Jim Jetter and approved by the GACC, which reports both amount and energy of produced char, is fundamentally in error. (This is what I gather from the following).</div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">I can’t keep track of who you are sending that to. I will continue here.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>NOTE: There is char remaining at the end of the batch. Crispin wants <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">the unburned char to be counted as fuel used. Others want the char to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">be valued as fuel for other stoves or as biochar or as atmospheric CO2 <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">removed. This debate is AN important question if discussing the amount <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">of original FUEL that is used. But it is not THE important question <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">concerning the stove efficiency of ENERGY released (with some amount <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">captured in the pot so that ENERGY efficiency can be calculated).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">I feel it necessary to add the words missing from the above:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Crispin wants the unburned char to be counted as fuel used if that char cannot be considered fuel for the stove being tested at the time.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">This is not a fine point, It is basic to the rating and prediction of fuel consumption.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">In many cases (I am chasing a new one) the remaining char is fuel for another stove. Fine. That stove will be rated according to how it uses that char, and what is unburnable leftovers will be considered ‘consumed’ by that char burning stove. The point is no one gets to double dip on the energy, altering (lowering) the claimed fuel consumption by pointing out that the ‘energy used’ is a lower number. Used energy is always a lower number than available, but that should not distract us.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>We really do need to differentiate between the FUEL and the ENERGY, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">especially when a substantial amount of energy is not extracted from the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">fuel, as is the case of the remaining charcoal.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Exactly! Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>This was not a problem when the only stoves available essentially took <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">all of the energy out of the fuel. But that is no longer the case and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">we need better definitions of "efficiencies".<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Well, in the 1980’s it was recognised as a problem and the Eindhoven Group and VITA both started discarding all remaining fuel as lost. They never, as far as I know, even tried using the leftovers that were burnable as part of the fuel in the next cycle, even when it was obvious that was happening on the ground. From what I can find, testes were always started with 100% new raw fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>With fossil fuels, we calculate that we get all of the energy released <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">from the fuel. BUT those are PROCESSED fuels like LPG and kerosene or <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">even "fuel oil". If you consider all of the original fuel (such as <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">crude oil), then there is a great amount of ENERGY in the "other stuff" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">that is not available via the stove. Should that be called "non-fuel" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">and be counted against the processed fuel's efficiency? No, not <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">really. Other derivatives of the crude oil have their own uses and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">values, of which some are not even for energy (such as asphalt).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">It is reasonable to make such a system analysis of the raw material. The point we face as testers is that we are asked what happens with this stove using that fuel. Period. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>Charcoal made from wood fuel is no longer wood. And therefore the FUEL <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">efficiency denotes the 100% disappearance of the wood. But in terms <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">for ENERGY efficiency, 100% of energy in wood = energy in charcoal + <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">E450c.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">That is one way to look at it.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>Crispin argues that Fuel efficiency needs to be reported. This can be <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">important in areas of severe deforestation. But that thinking is <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">deficient in three regards:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Let’s look:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>1. Tradition has used the term FUEL as if the amount of fuel could / <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">should / must be equated to the amount of ENERGY that is released. But <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">that equivalence is no longer the case when a significant "left-over" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">(by-product or co-product) is created, as in the case of the charcoal.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">The view is correct for certain fuel types, but it is not for biomass because of the way it burns. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>2. Tradition has focused on wood as if it were the only biomass fuel <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">that truly matters in cookstoves. That is no longer the case now that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">pyrolytic microgasifiers that use many other forms of biomass are <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">acknowledged to be serious candidates as clean cookstoves. [And that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">acknowledgement is certainly less than 8 years old, and maybe not even <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">acknowledged by some still today. Sad but true.]<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Well….charcoal has long been recognised as a biomass fuel. How it was produced varied. Gasifiers have been around for a long time, making charcoal. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>3. Therefore, if FUEL conservation (or efficient usage) is the battle <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">cry of the testers for fuel efficiency, then the use of NON-wood fuels <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">means that the micro-gasifier stoves need to be credited with using NO <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">wood from the forests and are therefore far superior than the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">wood-burning stoves in regard to the saving of forests (and watersheds <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">and animal habitats and biodiversity, etc.).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">That is unfortunately not the case – though some are still trying to make it (because it has certain merits). The availability of non-woody biomass is not a ‘given’ in many places. There are huge amounts of wasted biomass (burned to get rid of it) but that does not mean a generalisation is possible. Looking at the UNFCCC rules for what constitutes ‘sustainable biomass’ can lead to the conclusion that fuel efficiency (whatever the form of the biomass) is important. That is a general case, however there many places with an excess of something and others where everything is used. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">A policy manager might conclude that in their target region there is plenty of non-woody biomass and to save the forests from chopping, they will use the alternative. This does not have to be put into pyrolysers, it needs to be burned ‘somehow’ and a pyrolyser is one way to do it. It might be made into pellets or briquettes or powder. We should be technology neutral when making rules.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">></span>Summary statement and plea: Let's get off of the "wood standard" and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">get on the energy standard.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">We can do that, if we do not at the same time create a rating method for stove performance that lies about the fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">The issue for me has been that test methods have been mis-reporting actual performance and misleading programme managers who make decisions about what technology they want to support with their $$. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span>1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "> </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Stoves with equal performance shall receive equal ratings.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span>2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "> </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Stoves with unequal performance shall not receive equal ratings. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">If the mathematics of the test method provides a rating that contradicts either of those rules, it needs to be investigated and corrected. If a metric is the actual problem, change the metric (calculate something else that <i>is</i> representative of performance). <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">When it comes to mass of fuel consumed, the energy in it and so on, the lab is agnostic. There are no holy stoves and there are no holy fuels. The stove does what it does, emits what it emits, and consumes what it consumes. We just report it. Don’t shoot the messenger.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Thanks<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></pre></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>