<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Philip, and to Dean and all,<br>
<br>
Philip wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
do not think we should waste much more time arguing about them
– they are fundamentally wrong. </span></blockquote>
It is precisely because things are (or might be) wrong that we
need this time for discussion, even if it is a form of arguing.
To not press for clarification (and a possible reversal) of what
Dean is so staunchly defending would be to yield to the status quo
of the testing procedures. <br>
<br>
Crispin has been rather lonely as the outspoken critic of the
status quo WBT. It is interesting to hear such a solid support
by you (Philip). It would be good to hear from others who agree
with Crispin's comment: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
variables selected [for Low Power testing] are inappropriately
chosen. .... </span></blockquote>
But Crispin and you give an incorrect comment when saying:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">....
We have to move on.” </span></blockquote>
The time is NOW to keep this discussion going until there is
resolution. It might take a while, but as I see it, there are at
least two CAMPS or lines of thinking about the Low Power
measurements in the stove testing. Dean seems to present much of
the thinking found in the USA, with some (but probably not all)
supporters in the GACC and EPA. Crispin suggests that at least
some other countries and agencies are supportive of his line of
reasoning (China, Indonesia, South Africa, World Bank). But
certainly that also is not 100% locked in. <br>
<br>
Perhaps there is a totally different method or two. Perhaps the
current method and an alternative are BOTH meaningful. But I
doubt that. I am a stove designer, not an equation-using
physical-chemical scientist. So I will win when whichever
testing methodology is found to be correct. And I am VERY
CONCERNED that in 2015 we still need this discussion and debate.
But it must be resolved!!!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
Dean commented (and I think I did not take it out of context):<br>
<blockquote type="cite">... the new approaches are forged by
consensus.</blockquote>
"Consensus" will prevail (and there will be some who will never
join the consensus). But consensus is not to be based on
democratic votes or even a slight majority number of nations
adopting some set of standards. What must prevail is the SCIENCE
associated with the testing procedures. <br>
<br>
We should not be here trying to get votes like politicians. We
need to be hear sound scientific arguments. So, my requests are:<br>
<br>
Philip, (and others) please help explain what is incorrect with
the Low Power testing measurements and calculations. Most
specifically, the use of a variable called "amount of water boiled
away during simmering" seems to be in question. (also expressed
as weight of water in pot at end of simmering time).<br>
<br>
Dean, (and others) please help explain how the boiling away of
water during simmer time <u>has meaning in the calculations</u>
. We understand that evaporated water represents heat energy
that exits the system. But the system is about maintaining a
boiling point (or slightly below), and that task is accomplished
whether the evaporation is of 0 or 100 or 300 or 500 or more grams
of water. <br>
<br>
AND we know the amount of fuel that was consumed. What is
important is the fuel consumption, and we do not need "weight of
evaporated water " to know the fuel consumption. There is no
"work" in simmering except to keep the water in the pot from going
below the minimum allowed temperature. And the water temperature
cannot possibly go above the boiling point (unless in a
pressurized vessel, which is not an allowed consideration).<br>
<br>
To all: Please help us all to see the formulae (three of them,
for efficiency, CO and PM) that are in the current version of the
testing protocol. The document is public and on the Internet.
Please help us find the right specific pages. I will not
pretend to understand such formulae, but with help, I want to boil
it down to the issue of the evaporated water. Does it matter?
Should it matter?<br>
<br>
I am most focused on the formula for efficiency, but all three
with survive or fall together with the understanding of the impact
of the amount of water that is evaporated during simmering.<br>
<br>
This is NOT the time to turn away from this discussion. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 2/15/2015 1:43 PM, Philip Lloyd wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:011a01d04957$9e86ef50$db94cdf0$@co.za"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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:0cm;
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Dean<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">Crispin
said it well:<br>
“</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
three low power metr</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">ics
are invalid. The variables selected are inappropriately
chosen. The calculated results are misleading and contrary
to any claim [that] they provide guidance for product
development or selection. We have to move on.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
have looked at the simmering metrics in WBT 4.3.2 and can
only concur. That is why I do not think we should waste
much more time arguing about them – they are fundamentally
wrong. Yes, stove designers need to be concerned with
simmering and turndown; no, the WBT simmering metrics do not
provide them with guidance, and can be positively
misleading, which is worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kind
regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip
Lloyd<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Stoves [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dean Still<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 06:38<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of results of simmer
efficiency Re: [Ethos] Additional presentations at ETHOS
2015<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Prof Loyd,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I pointed out, when the stoves do
the same work (hold the water at 97 C, for example) the
stove with greater heat transfer efficiency scores better.
Simmering tests are important and simmering is an
important part of cooking.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ISO process is creating new history
and approaches to old problems. Whatever emerges will
certainly be defensible as the new approaches are forged
by consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dean<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM,
Philip Lloyd <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
am concerned that this is turning into a very
fruitless discussion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On
fundamental grounds the simmering test does not
provide anything meaningful. Crispin has
demonstrated that rigorously, and others have
pointed out that the test can score an efficient
stove poorly and an inefficient stove well, so
it does not provide any useful measure. To go
on defending the indefensible does not make
sense, even if it did accentuate the need for
turndown – but that need was always there, it
was not the product of the WBT.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We
need defensible measures of stove performance.
Can we please turn our attention to developing
those, and leave the indefensible to history?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Prof
Philip Lloyd</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Energy
Institute</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cape
Peninsula University of Technology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PO
Box 652, Cape Town 8000</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="Tel:021">Tel:021</a>
460 4216</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Fax:021
460 3828</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cell:
083 441 5247</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Stoves [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org"
target="_blank">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 February 2015 02:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Examples of
results of simmer efficiency Re: [Ethos]
Additional presentations at ETHOS 2015</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Dean, my reply is below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
2/14/2015 1:06 PM, Dean Still wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dear
Paul, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">To
do well on the Low Power Specific
Consumption metrics the stove has to have a
good Turn Down Ratio. In other words, the
stove has to have high power and low power.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
totally agree with this. But it is not the whole
story of LPSC. Other factors influence LPSC,
especially concerning the measurement of the
variables that are used to make the calculation.
These can include the insulation of the pot (incl.
skirts), lid on pot, pot characteristics such as
size, quantity of water in the pot at the start,
and at the finish.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Specific
Consumption is based on how much energy was
used to create simmered water. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Simmered
water is not created. It was already hot at the
start of the simmer phase of testing. We are
interested in how much energy is used to MAINTAIN
the required temperature near boiling, but
preferable about 3 degrees C lower than that
boiling temperature. In fact, a super-insulative
pot could need barely a flicker of a flame, and
therefore even a well turned-down stove could
cause the water to boil and evaporate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">If
the stove only operates at high power there is
more steam made and [at the end of testing]
less simmered water remains....<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">that
is true. but continue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">.....
so energy was used to create less product.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Stove
simmering is not creating a product. It is
maintaining a temperature. The steam that is
driven off does not represent loss of "product"
which should be understood to be "cooked food"
(and not meaning water that can be added to the
pot by any attentive cook in a household.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
like Specific Consumption because it forces
stove designers to make stoves that simmer
successfully, not just boil water. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
agree. But the measurement procedures need to
accurately document the ability to have that
strong turn-down ratio, without calculations that
can yield ambiguous or mis-leading results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">For
example, new TLUDs are better stoves because
they have both high power and low power. In my
opinion, the WBT 4.2.3 helped to create these
more successful TLUDs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">The
cause-and-effect relationship is not totally
clear. We have wanted turn-down capabilities in
TLUDs for many years. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">As
Sam says, we are working on a paper showing
characteristics of the WBT 4.2.3 for the ISO
work. Knowing the characteristics lets folks
evolve a perfect test. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I
question the above wording to "evolve a perfect
test" (which is a test run, not the test
procedures.) Maybe the statement should be that
"knowing the characteristics let's folks operate
their stoves in special ways to obtain superior
results that are not realistic for average
users." OR "... let's folks 'game the metrics' to
present 'perfected' test-results BASED ON
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND NOT ON IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE STOVES THEMSELVES." <br>
<br>
OR it could be that flawed protocols /procedures
(such as dividing by the volume of remaining water
after simmering) can yield numerical results that
are questionable and perhaps disadvantageous to
the development of clean cookstoves. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Sam
is doing great work as he crunches all the
data....<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">absolutely.
But we are questioning if the numbers are as valid
and useful as claimed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> and
gives ISO real numbers to work with in their
discussions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Concluding statement: The topic of Low Power
Specific Consumption is too important to just
brush aside the stated issues. More "expert
testimony" would be useful, including a
mathematical analysis of the impact of the parts
of the calculations. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dean<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paul Anderson
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"
target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Tom H., and to all who are
interested in proper testing of stoves.<br>
<br>
Your reply about your experiences is
helpful. Sounds like you had qualified
testing center do the testing, in
accordance with the procedures that
Crispin is questioning. Please send to
me the full details. Could be off-list,
but this is sufficiently important that we
will want the full results known.<br>
<br>
I have a specific case of official testing
of one of my stoves with unfavorable
results for Low-Heat Efficiency
(simmering). I will add that into the
list of examples and provide the details
very soon.<br>
<br>
I invite anyone else who has something to
report about simmering efficiency to also
send details of their experiences, either
favorable or unfavorable or neutral. <br>
<br>
The examination of the questionable
methods about simmer efficiency might take
some days, maybe weeks. But not the
months or years that this debate has been
"simmering". <br>
<br>
Remember: A testing center that properly
conducts testing using an endorsed but
possibly flawed procedure is NOT a
culprit. The culprit is the testing
protocols, <u>IF found to be faulty. </u>And
we hope that the testing center people
(employees and leaders) who understand the
technical aspects of the calculations will
be among those who can help resolve these
serious issues.<br>
<br>
Even those who developed protocols that
are eventually shown to be faulty are not
culprits. Mistakes can be made.
However, the culprits can include those
who advocate a protocol that he or she
knows (or reasonably suspects) to be
faulty.<br>
<br>
Paul <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org"
target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information
see our web site:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/"
target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>