<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)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Philip and All<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There are a few other papers comparing the Chinese WBT to other tests, including the GACC WBT, the Indian WBT and the CSI Test. We could as well refer to these.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I have attached Rani, Kandpal and Mullick 1992 which examines the inner workings of several test methods including the VITA’s test, identifying systemic issues some of which had been carried into the WBT 4.2.3. It is the earliest paper I can find that demonstrates that there is no connection between the amount of water in the pot and the emissions. It supports Zhang Y (2014) in concluding that the low power metrics of the IWA tiers have no physical basis. This being the case, I expect there will inevitably be problems making comparisons between test results because comparing valid metrics with invalid ones is going to give results with some element of randomness.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In two series of tests run at the CAU lab in 2015 and 2014 during the S4G conferences using various test methods including the two named in the paper below, results were recalculated to demonstrate that all the tests were in significant agreement once invalid calculations were corrected. The single outlier was the Chinese Water Boiling efficiency result which was consistently higher (by >10% of value) in large part because (we think) the retained heat in the stove is allowed to be applied to evaporating water, something not done in the other tests which are ended by time, not temperature.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>It remains to be seen if the metrics in the IWA tiers were first correct to the Chinese ones, or if the Chinese ones were corrupted by making them match the IWA. I will have a look.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The Rani et al paper is a Permagon Press paper, and I found the whole paper posted on line so I don’t know what to say about the copyright. Permagon seems to have been taken over by Elsevier. There may have been a time when it was available open source. If not, obtain your own copy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=567 height=37 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D180FC.F38C57F0"><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If the file is too large to attach for the general readership here, it could be posted in the Stoves site. I recently found it is available for sale <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0196890492901067">here</a>. My previous searches did not locate this source.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Significantly, the analysis does not mention the pointlessness of the ‘simmering efficiency’ metric, much in vogue at the time. They didn’t catch that. It does clearly identify the problem with the ‘specific’ performance numbers for low power and reports the result of their experiment seeking to prove whether or not the mass of water in the pot affects the need for heat to keep it at a constant temperature. This is basically the same experiment performed at a much higher resolution by Zhang et al in 2014 (there is no detectable effect at all). Jim Jetter reported replicating the experiment with the same conclusion. The ‘specific’ numbers were introduced in 1987-ish by Sam Baldwin replacing the legitimate metrics of the Feu de Bois test (1982). All this is covered in the paper “From WBT to WHT” at the C4D website.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>With respect to the emission rate and total, unless the WHO model of exposure is validated somehow, I can’t see how it is possible to claim that a stove ‘cannot’ or ‘does not’ meet some indoor air exposure advisory limit because that depends on the stove, its level of excess air and the kitchen ventilation. We are testing stoves, not kitchen architecture. This is a problem the WHO technical committee has to deal with when making claims about what is ‘clean enough’. They have proposed using a single box model for emissions that assumes all emissions are spread through the room evenly and affect all occupants. They also experimented a bit with a three-box model that predicts less than half the exposure. Which was sued in the paper below? Do either support the long-standing claim (1999) that ‘solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly enough’ to be used for cooking?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>When postulating the rather obvious solution of putting a hood or chimney on the stove to transport emissions outside, two replies are made: one is that outdoor emissions will come indoors and might cause too much exposure, and that (all) chimney stoves leak emissions into the room. When checking the parameters used in this model, I found that the leakage estimates were very high (0-50%) and pollutant emissions from ‘chimney stoves’ were assumed to be baseline level, i.e. that there were, and are, no improved chimney stoves, while there are improved non-chimney stoves. Is that reasonable? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The assumed leakage is enough that the single box model will always calculate an exposure that is above the new WHO limit. In short there are no <i>measurements</i> behind the claim for exposure, it is a model with assumptions that pretty much guarantee failure of all stoves. It has already been reported here that there are natural draft pellet stoves burning cleaner than LPG stoves, so I cannot see why solid fuels are assumed automatically to be ‘too polluting’ to use in any kitchen but LPG is OK.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>It should be obvious that if one has a clean burning modern stove and it is connected to a chimney and it happens to leak some of its tiny bit of its emissions into the room, there is virtually nothing in the room. Because the assumptions in the exposure model virtually assure that all stoves will fail, we should await validation of the model before accepting its exposure claims. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If the paper remains pay-walled perhaps Kirk or one of the principal authors can comment here on how the metrics were handled because that is key. With respect to the exposure model, we could ask for input from Nikhil Desai or other experts on what data would be needed and how to determine exposure based on stove emissions and kitchen architecture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regards</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>++++++++<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Unfortunately the reference is behind a paywall.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Prof Philip Lloyd<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Energy Institute, CPUT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>SARETEC, Sachs Circle<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Bellville<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Tel 021 959 4323<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>Cell 083 441 5247<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'>PA Nadia 021 959 4330<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Stoves [<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 18, 2016 3:22 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:stove@lists.berkeley.edu">stove@lists.berkeley.edu</a>; Stoves and biofuels network<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Stovers,<br><br>Below is the abstract of a significant comparative study done in China. We thank Kirk Smith and his Stove list (different from StoveS) for the information.<br><br>Spoiler alert: Here is the punch line from the abstract: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:14.0pt'>Statistically significant differences</span><span lang=EN-ZA> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:14.0pt'>between the two [China and Internatonal WBT] protocols indicate the need for further efforts in emission tests and methodology development</span><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:14.0pt'>before the release of a well-accepted international testing protocol.</span><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><br>Yes. Should we be surprised. It seems that some entities in the international leadership of clean cookstoves might be pushing for one test without sufficient attention to alternative testing methods.<br><br>Note (in abstract) that: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:14.0pt'>With longer burning duration and higher</span><span lang=EN-ZA> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:14.0pt'>power, the Chinese WBT had statistically higher efficiencies, gas temperature, and lower pollutant emissions</span><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><br>Sure!!! Change the duration and power, expect different test results!!! <br><br>What is clear to me is that there should never be only one set of tests. People around the world have very different ways of cooking. High power in China, plancha stoves in Central America, two-arm cooking of thick foods in parts of Africa, long-simmering bean-meals vs. quick boil of rice meals, and on and on. The people we are trying to serve want solutions that are appropriate for their circumstances. <br><br>Observation: There seems to be a slow-down in the seeking of stove testing at the major testing centers that have equipment. I can be shown to be incorrect if any testing centers would give us some statistics of numbers and types of tests that are being requested.<br><br>Of course I like the importance of emissions testing because the TLUDs and other micro-gasifiers consistently give superior results. But most funding in the past has gone to less-qualified stoves. <br><br>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><pre><span lang=EN-ZA>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<o:p></o:p></span></pre><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>