<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: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;
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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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'>Part of the reason the matter of the WBT performing measurements correctly or not, has been the stonewalling presented by those with an investment in it. There is no other way to put it. There was no resistance from the Indians or the Chinese or the South Africans to correcting at least the worst aspects to the WBT calculations. <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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>No engineer or physicist is going to argue that an invalid metric should be used as a measurement for rating performance. The only ‘consensus’ is by those who a) do not really seem to understand the matter and b) those with an investment in it, either institutionally or personally – I can’t tell which and it doesn’t matter.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The WBT is uniquely odd in that it was used (especially in the US) for a long time without having a proper review being performed. That I seem to be the first to review it is, to me, very strange. Who am I to be initiating a scientific review of a test that has been used to inform policy and direct millions in expenditure? How is it even <i>possible</i> that it was not done before? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>All three low power metrics of the IWA are invalid from the get-go. There is no’ recalculating them in a more creating manner’. They fail conceptually. They give wrong information about comparative performance and should definitely not be used to direct expenditure or inform policy. Pushing them of shooting the messenger, which as bene tried many times, will not validate an invalid set of metrics. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>100% of those in attendance at the IWA meeting voted in support of the document. People did it for different reasons. I was there and I voted for it. It had no influence over anything I was doing and will not, because it was produce in a biased and coerced manner. Fine – if that is what they want, go ahead, I won’t stand in the way. But that 100% <i>in no way</i> validates its contents. Validation is by review, and it fails review. It will fail every review because it contains fatal error of concept and mathematics.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As Philip succinctly said, there is no point in defending something that is indefensible. There is no ground to stand on – not even quicksand. It is just wrong. Worse, it is misleading. Sam pointed out that if you simply use a bigger pot, you can get a Tier 4 rating for a stove that is probably a Tier 2. I have demonstrated that the PM emissions will be rated at Tier 1 instead of Tier 3 if the stove in improved in terms of power control. What on earth can you do with nonsense like that?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Ant that is not even to <i>start</i> to address the problems created by trying to have tiers in the first place which is a separate matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dean, we all appreciate enthusiasm and devotion to the cause of improved stoves, but we can’t ‘just make stuff up’. Not when we are taking other people’s money and claiming to spend it honestly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Raman made the point that ‘simmering in needed’. Maybe in India it is. Cultures which only do stir fry – what Cecil calls the ‘blowtorch school of cookery’ – do not need a simmering stage in their rating procedure.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That is why we need a testing framework – a protocol – that is agreed, as a method of measurement and reporting. Within that one can conduct any of a range of burn cycles that represent the cooking and fuels and pots that the community of interest uses. Locally relevant testing is the only way to predict how a stove will perform in use. That requires a sea change in the attitude towards lab testing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>It is already widely practiced in the vehicle industry, in health, in bridge design, in everything except stoves. We are going to change it, right now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Philip, and to Dean and all,<br><br>Philip wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The variables selected [for Low Power testing] are inappropriately chosen. .... </span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>But Crispin and you give an incorrect comment when saying:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>.... We have to move on.” </span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>... the new approaches are forged by consensus.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>"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><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/15/2015 1:43 PM, Philip Lloyd wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><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'>Dear Dean</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 metrics 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.” </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Kind regards</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Philip Lloyd</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 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</span><o:p></o:p></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 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 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 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 href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Website: <a 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><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 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 href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Website: <a 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 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 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 href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Stoves mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>