<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size: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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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 Jock<o:p></o:p></span></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'>First, I want to say that I completely agree with everything you have said with reference to the use of a char producing stove in an economic context where the whole system is analysed as to how it fits into family life and the family economy.<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'>Because words are often put into my mouth by others I wanted clarify that before moving on and generating my own words.<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>I am happy with this if the value/benefit of the biochar is higher than the cost of the additional feedstock. <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 there are only a few examples of this <i>not</i> being the case. The only feedstock that has a really high value are pellets and torrefied pellets and the only reason to char them would be to create a very high value specialised char product, or if the pellets were damaged in some way (mould?).<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>For example, if the feedstock is scrap/waste with no higher use, its value is close to zero. Then the value of the Biochar can also be close zero as well. <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 would have said that it allows the product to be sold at a low price, but I don’t want to under-appreciate the time it takes to operate the reactor. But I take your point.<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>The special case where the feedstock can NOT be used by a combustion device voids the argument.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Well, yeah, but what was the argument? If someone can cook on the waste or wood available and create a product with an economic value (amendment, fertiliser, fuel for a second stove, drawing crayons, pigment, food additive, medicinal applications) then a systems analysis would naturally consider those values.<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'>If the product is incombustible, totally, that does not rule out the non-combustion uses.<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>What is the issue if the biochar is used with forestry seedlings and substantially improves their success rate? <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'>Then the person looking for that benefit would probably be willing to pay something for it based on the economic advantage gained.<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>What is the value/benefit of biochar used to enhance the success rate of reforestation?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is for the forester to answer. The point is that there is a possible benefit for the manufacturer, who it is agreed might be a cook.<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>Or what if the biochar has economic value in the kitchen garden that is greater than the cost of the additional feedstock. Is this ipso facto a bad thing?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Of course not. I don’t think there is anyone suggesting that income be lost where it could be gained, or that there is inherent in a stove some bias against any use of any fuel or fuel product. That is not where the disagreements lie. People should be efficient and modest.<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>In the end, if a pyrolytic device can meet all of the health requirements and ALSO create new/additional economic and social benefits, then I am all for it. <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'>Me too. I have on this forum many times encouraged everyone to consider the whole equation in the hope that we could agree on a spreadsheet that had each and every step in the whole production and consumption chain. Such a tool would help people new to the topic to understand how a stove or fuel fits into the entire context. It is one way to discover a disruptive technology. This can be done on multiple fronts: just follow the money, just follow the energy, just follow the time and effort, maybe others.<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>Only in the case where a pyrolytic device can be shown to actually reduce economic and social value/benefits would I be opposed.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What would you be opposed to? If you were to narrow the focus to only, say, the total energy and you found some was wasted, is that the end of the story, or would you allow that the analysis could consider saving a great deal of time, though using more energy or costing more money? People often choose to do what is convenient, not what is cheapest. They do it because ‘time is money’. Not everyone is utterly poor. Even very poor people in Indonesia use some LPG even though it is costly and inconvenient to obtain and transport to their rural homes. They could ‘save money’ by doing something else but they don’t, and they do what they do because they want to.<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>This issue is cannot be evaluated on any one single metric. It is much more complex than that.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is precisely my point of course. Things happen in a social context. Do you agree? One might make the most marvellously energy-efficient stove that is really inconvenient to operate. The enthusiast who designed it will demonstrate that with time and practise, the inconvenience can be minimised. Well, perhaps in the community of interest it happens that they really hate that type of inconvenience. It has no chance of success. It is a form of, “If you don’t like hot food, don’t move to Mexico.”<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'>When designing a test, the first thing to ask is what the User of the result wants to know. They may not have framed the question well, so the user should be interrogated to see if there is any misunderstanding of what is desired. Then with an agreed metric(s) and definitions clear, a test is designed to produce that metric as accurately as necessary (and not moreso). <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'>All stove evaluations take place in a context. That does <i>not</i> mean the context defines the metrics, however. What I mean by that is just because one is in a community that does not use charcoal at all, one can still consider how much charcoal is produced by a fire <i>if that is the metric the user wants determined</i>. User pays, tester produces. <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'>On the other hand just because a community uses charcoal, a user may only be interested in how much fuel is consumed each time the stove is used, with a definition of ‘consumed’ meaning how much of the available raw resource is needed to complete whatever task is being performed, considering the re-use of fuel remaining from the previous replication. You can see from these words that definitions are intimately linked to the worth of a measured output.<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 enthusiast stove community is coming to grips with the maturation of the sector and the recognition of the importance of performance evaluations. It is a struggle because as an isolated band of brothers whatever we wanted to use, we used, and we had some informal agreements on what most things meant.<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'>Now that the stove community members are being consulted on, or deeply involved in, the creation of international and national regulations for the determination of stove performance, it is not uncommon find ourselves out of our depth because at that stratospheric level of regulation, things are far more rigorous and structured. Unlike in the garage and on the ground, we can just ‘make stuff up’ the way the science pioneers invented units of measure like ‘Ohms per ton-mile’ as a metric for a wire size in the telegraph industry. Bars and bottle stores were happy with gills and noggins but internationally you have to talk about hectolitres.<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'>Viewed systematically, the early stove designing community was the context. International regulation is a different context and the old quality of work or word precision or technical refinement is simply not sufficient.<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'>So with reference to char making stoves in an environment with real economic consequences for the users, an evaluation is needed, and that evaluation is ‘wide-eyed’, meaning it is all-seeing. It is not limited to the energy chain, the value chain or the time chain. The great majority of stove tests are performed to determine the fuel consumption. This has been handled for years using a method designed for coal-fired power station boiler rating. However it was dressed up, or how much lipstick was put on, it was conceptually a ‘continuous condition’ measurement method. In Europe they still take this approach for the most part. Conditions are stabilised, often with a CO2 level in the exhaust used to determine that conditions are ‘the same as before’ and a comparison is made for some metric or other like CO, burn rate, combustion efficiency or heat transfer efficiency.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>These conceptual frameworks have evolved little and are in need of a really good re-evaluation because many are slightly or grossly inappropriate. Some of the most imperative are the determination of the energy efficiency, the energy consumption and the fuel consumption of domestic stoves. <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'>Consider the manufacturer of charcoal fuel who uses the potential energy in the raw wood, if it had been fully dried, as a denominator in an efficiency calculation. The charcoal produced is completely dry and serves as the numerator. The maximum potential energy that was available in the sourced wood is its dry wood energy. Suppose it was 1000 MJ. This wood is turned into charcoal with an energy density of 1.5 times that of the raw, dry wood, and the mass yield is such that the total energy in the charcoal is 500 MJ.<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 can say that is a conversion efficiency of 50% because the energy available from the charcoal is ½ of the energy that one could have got from the wood, had it been completely dried. <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'>However that wood is never completely dried first because it is difficult to do that, so the energy available, the denominator in the equation is the moist fuel energy value: the dry fuel value factored for fuel moisture. Suppose it is 800 MJ moist instead of 1000 MJ dry. One can say justifiably say the energy efficiency of the production of charcoal is 62.5%, not 50%.<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'>In reality almost no one reports charcoal production that way. They report it on a mass basis. The same options arise: should we report the charcoal mass as a fraction of the dry fuel mass or the mass of moist fuel that went into the process? There are two quite different answers with these two options. <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'>Contributors here happily report their ‘char production’ but without using agreed units we don’t really know what the person is saying. In short, the correct answer depends on what question is being asked. Personally I want to know the dry/dry charcoal production rate, compensated for ash, because that metric has uses in several different formulas.<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'>This point made, and returning to the issue of fuel consumption, the slightly modified formulas from the power station industry that are in common use have always assumed that stoves do not ‘manufacture charcoal’. The realisation that char contains energy (even if it is difficult to measure) led to the further modification of the formula used to calculate the Heat Transfer Efficiency (HTE). At this point, a problem arose. Were people asking for the HTE or the fuel consumption? To a designer, the HTE is an important design metric. To a forester the fuel consumption per cycle is most important because he has to plan to produce enough to feed the fires. For years the designer’s context has ruled the protocols. <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 the advent of carbon trading and aggressive conservation, the forester’s perspective is becoming dominant among the Users of the test results, but the formulas have not kept pace. HTE <i>can</i> be used as a proxy for fuel efficiency, but only when the amount of char produced is very small because, essentially, it contains a calculation error. The more char produced, the greater the difference between an HTE calculation and a fuel consumption calculation – conditioned on one assumption: that the stove cannot or does not burn the char remaining from the previous fire (which is usually the case in the real world).<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 forester, looking at the part of the whole system that interests him, wants only the fuel consumption, or its energy equivalent (which to a scientist is the same thing). Notice I am saying the <i>energy equivalent</i>, not the <i>energy consumption</i>, because the latter is a different metric and does not necessarily represent fuel consumption. The energy consumed <i>can</i> be turned into a fuel mass equivalent. That fuel mass equivalent is <i>not</i> the same as the mass of fuel consumed if there is unburnable (in that stove, next fire) char produced during operation.<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'>This subtle difference in terms has large real-world consequences when rating stove performance. TLUD pyrolysers that deliver 50% of the original fuel energy in the form of char can be grossly misrepresented if an incorrect formula is applied to the fuel consumption calculation. <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'>Someone might ask what the fuel consumption is. Someone else might want to know how much energy was consumed. Another wants to know how much energy was leftover. All are valid questions and have a place in an analysis of the entire fuel-stove-char-agriculture context. We need protocols for determining all of them. We must also be clear that it is incorrect and misleading to provide an answer to a question different from the one asked. <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'>If the User of the information wants to know how much dry raw fuel a stove consumes each time it performs a certain burn cycle, and is told the dry mass equivalent of the energy consumed, or the energy yielded by the fire (considering the combustion efficiency) they are getting the wrong information. In the case of a TLUD pyrolyser, the two answers can differ by a factor of more than 2.5:1. If I were to understate the fuel consumption of a stove by a factor of 2, my customer would understandably be upset.<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'>For those who want to produce char for other reasons than fuel, they will have a set of metrics crafted to inform them. They may differ substantially from fuel efficiency metrics. This is not a problem unless they are mixed inappropriately in an evaluation report.<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 can see that a set of clearly defined terms is needed. All the desired metrics are definable, and provide valid information, but have their place. Unfortunately, even at the UNFCCC level, metrics and methods are being used and money is changing hands even though the methods have not been reviewed for correctness and appropriateness (these being two different things). People are being misled even as we speak.<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'>A way of dealing with this in the longer term is that methods should have signatures under them, and the reputation of those signatories or the sponsoring organisation should rest on the quality of their work. The recent release of GACC-WBT 4.2.3 is a case in point. It is basically unchanged from v4.2.2.<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'>If the WBT was a bridge, would you drive your car over it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the reported fuel consumption was a rock climbing rope, would you climb it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the precision of the method was a targeting sight, would William Tell use it to loose his arrow the apple on his son’s head?<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 get my point I am sure. We should hold people who are certifying test methods responsible, somehow, for the quality of their work. A lot of money is changing hands on the basis of some pretty dubious claims.<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'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin in Johannesburg<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>