<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Nikhil,<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who
did what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was
among the parties who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement
at the IWA meeting. In the agreement, the writers wrote the
sentence: "the WBT is not the only valid protocol". I don't
know who said the WBT was valid in the first place. It has
never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we were given this
agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most often
communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that
would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use,
and quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols,
with the CCT and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing
and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But
testers usually don't do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too
many efforts to organize and it takes too much time. I believe
it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I believe the GACC promoted
also other protocols.</li>
<li>I think the GACC was supporting the updating of the WBT:<br>
</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho
equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of
other suppliers of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?<br>
</li>
</ol>
Another<br>
As I said, what is the past is the past. <br>
<ol>
</ol>
<br>
On 2/18/17 19:06, Traveller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK27e=mtB_k9ONEYANq4ph2mtCY8MvheDygV49XM4m2gOrvCDw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Xavier: <br>
<br>
As an economist, I agree with you sunk cost has no
consideration. I wonder, though, how much or how little work has
been done anyway. Lima Consensus or IWA promises seem to have
wilted.<br>
<br>
I am sorry I am asking two serious questions rather late - <br>
<ol>
<li>What is your evidence that GACC has "promoted" the WBT? Is
it only the VITA WBT or also the Indian or Chinese? </li>
<li>Do you know if WBT been mandated or officially sanctioned
by EPA in any testing by EPA for cookstoves in the US, and
further if Approvecho or any such testing facilities for
household cookstoves have been accredited by the EPA (and if
so, on what basis) or have received ISO accreditation? Has
GACC demanded Approvecho equipment or training for non-US
stoves programs? <br>
</li>
</ol>
It may well be that there is no legal authority for an
unregistered private group - a project of the UN Foundation - to
promote WBT, approve WBT, or approve any testing facility in the
US, unless there are secret agreements with authorities in
respective countries (US and elsewhere). <br>
<br>
I am revisiting the IWA, and I find that the 90 experts resolved
that "Resolution 1
The International Workshop on Cookstoves recognizes that the
VITA WBT 4.1.2 protocol
referenced in this document is not the only valid protocol for
rating cookstove performance in the
laboratory. "<br>
<br>
Why is Ron disputing the very first resolution? <br>
<br>
The IWA was entirely PCIA - that is, a US Government, as USAID
and EPA - product and clearly reflecting the US practice of WBT
by EPA contractors even though I have not yet found any EPA
regulation for test protocols or testing laboratories for
biomass cookstoves. <br>
<br>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">DeFoort said on the Lima
Consensus "</span>to use the WBT 4.0 (emissions), Iowa State
or Bolivia (safety) as <u>interim protocols" and that after
IWA, "In the next few months: • Propose changes to protocols
and additional protocols • Define quantitative tier values
for those additional protocols"</u><br>
<br>
What is the status? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
I also think the presentations at IWA need a relook. For
instance, Jim Jetter proposed a measure of "mg/MJ delivered to
the pot." This simply means that a poor household with a small
kitchen area and eight people to feed can have higher emission
loading than someone like me, cooking in a 120 sq ft kitchen
with two windows and a door close to a balcony door, in a 1,000
sq ft apt on fourth floor of a tall building open on three
sides.
<div><br>
<div>Where do these experts come up with Tiers, specific
emission rate targets? Are they hide data on "three stone"
fires of supposedly 300 million cooks? <br>
<br>
This could be a scandal. Which is why US interests need the
ISO - not just for standards but the testing protocols and
equipment, and staff training.
<div><br>
***********<br>
<br>
Frank here has been talking of a radical (at least for WBT
believers) idea - "<span style="font-size:12.8px">where
the fuel limits are determined for their stove."<br>
<br>
Imagine!! He says, "</span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">The onsite wild biomass is
semi-prepared.."<br>
<br>
Imagine!! We are not in the realm of birch and oak or
mango wood any more. (Hard wood has much better uses
than direct fuel, even for making charcoal.)<br>
<br>
Get a fix on the fuel. Because operations of a cookstove
aren't going to be amenable to regulations like what EPA
has on residential wood heaters in the US: ""</span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">The rule continues to require
the owner or operator of a wood </span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">heating appliance to operate
the heater consistent with the owner's </span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">manual and <u>not burn
improper fuel. Owners and operators must operate </u></span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><u>pellet fuel appliances with
the grades of pellet fuels that are </u></span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><u>included in the owner's
manual</u>. Manufacturers are required to void </span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">their warranties in cases of
improper operation." (Federal Register 16 March 2015). </span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nikhil</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Message: 7</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Date: Wed, 15 Feb
2017 18:07:38 -0800</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">From: Frank Shields
<</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">To: Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Cc: Xavier Brandao
<</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">>, Ranyee Chiang</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rchiang@cleancookstoves.org"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">rchiang@cleancookstoves.org</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Subject: Re: [Stoves]
Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> the WBT</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Message-ID: <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:344854B2-D626-4108-9354-7E767AEAB82F@cruzio.com"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">344854B2-D626-4108-9354-7E767<wbr>AEAB82F@cruzio.com</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Dear Ron,</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Just a quick comment:</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">you say:</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> This is not
to say that affordability knowledge will not come
out of lab testing. In fact it is the only way to
make comparisons and claims on meal, daily,
weekly, monthly and annual costs. But costs
should not be an output from a lab test. Sales
people know that world well - and it will vary all
over the place.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">A goal should be to
make all stove developers able to present their
stove into the market equal to everyones else.
That would be to have them send their stove into a
lab where the fuel limits are determined for their
stove. That done once and paper carrying test
results included with the stove. No other tests
done on the stove in the lab. Cooking tests and
acceptance and air quality tests done in the field
(I am now thinking). We just need to know what
type of fuel the stove is designed to use and the
limits so to match stoves with the available wild
biomass on site. And any preparation requirements
on the wild biomass needed for each stove.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">I once saw a graph
that i think would work but now cannot find it. It
looked like a spider web. Each spoke was a
condition (moisture, volatile fraction, ash,
carbon density, length to width ratio, size
distribution, etc.). The stove leaves the lab with
one of these reports. The onsite wild biomass is
semi-prepared and has its own sheet. Place one on
top of the other and if the stove values fall
within the wild biomass values the stove will work
for that fuel.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">So this test package
is done once on the stove and once on the wild
biomass. That should be affordable. As to the
added field work done to compare different stoves
onsite for acceptance and cleanliness - well that
could cost a lot of money. Who will pay for that?
If left to the stove developer then it will end up
being only the chosen privileged given the
opportunity.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks Ron for all
you do.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Regards</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Frank</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br>
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Message: 11</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Date: Thu, 16 Feb
2017 13:55:04 +0100</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">From: Xavier Brandao
<</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">To: Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Cc: "Ronal W. Larson"
<</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">>, Ranyee Chiang</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rchiang@cleancookstoves.org"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">rchiang@cleancookstoves.org</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">>, yark <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:yark@illinois.edu"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">yark@illinois.edu</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Subject: Re: [Stoves]
Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> the WBT</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Message-ID: <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:27b0fa40-f425-0c66-daf1-2a960f80d9a5@gmail.com"
style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">27b0fa40-f425-0c66-daf1-2a960<wbr>f80d9a5@gmail.com</a><span
style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Dear Frank,</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"Agree - if they are
relevant."</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/Of course, the
questions need to be relevant. Let's discuss then
the </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">relevance
of these questions. I know first that the question
raised by </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Fabio
Riva, Francesco Lombardi and their colleagues, and
that they have,</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">fortunately for us,
started to answer, is very relevant.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Dear Ron,</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">What you are doing is
using an appeal to authority, also called </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">"argument from
prestige": </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html"
rel="noreferrer" style="font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://philosophy.l<wbr>ander.edu/logic/authority.html</a><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"This person has a
great CV, so probably he/she is right". Appeal to </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">authority is something I
don't like, because I think everyone's opinion </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">matter, as long as they
bring a reasonable argumentation. Everyone's </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">voice counts the same,
regardless of the nice CV. Of course, we will </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">probably trust more the
opinion of a doctor in psychology than the one </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">of a carpenter on
psychology questions, and vice-versa. But this is
not </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">the
situation here.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">And you might not
want to go down this road, because if you start
to </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">have a
look at Crispin's CV, or Harold Annegarn's, or
Philip Lloyd's, </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">with his degrees in
chemical engineering and nuclear physics, you
might</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">become very
interested in the work they did on protocols. They
did a lot </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">of
work, in their field of expertise.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"there are a few in
this dialog who _would_ completely throw five
years </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">of
hard work by many out the window., with no
intention to ever return." <br>
</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">What you talk about
is sunk cost: </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost"
rel="noreferrer" style="font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org<wbr>/wiki/Sunk_cost</a><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">This is very
important, because I got this argument already
from WBT </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">supporters,
and I am sure it was one of the main arguments in
the </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">discussions
at ETHOS. Sunk cost is a very common bias in </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">decision-making. It is a
shame if 5 years of hard work are lost, but </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">they are already lost. If
it is a dead end, it is a dead end, no matter </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">how many you bang your
head on the wall. </span></div>
<div><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">What we try to
prevent now is other years of wasted efforts. Stop
the </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">bleeding.</span></div>
<div><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Excuse my French, but
I'll use a not very elegant but powerful image to </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">illustrate that: if you
have been piling shit for 5 years, you might be </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">frustrated to get rid of
all that shit, because even if it is shit, it </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">took a long time to make
a pile that high. But even if you keep piling </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">layers and layers of shit
on top, it will never turn into a pile of gold.<br>
</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">By the way, do you
know how much money was spent improving the WBT?</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">The sunk cost concept
is to start doing the right thing _now_. It is </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">never too late to do the
right thing.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Along those lines, I
would like to ask you other questions:</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> * How many years of
efforts were lost, because of the uncertainty of </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">results obtained from the
WBT testing?</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> * How much money
and efforts did stove companies, project leaders </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">wasted, because their
stove went from one testing center to another, </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">with conflicting results?</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px"> * How hindered were
they in their mission, which is to solve poverty </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">and save lives? Talking
about social impact.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">I let you ponder on
that.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">So in fact I'll try
to be true, maybe yes, maybe I want to "kill" the </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">WBT. If it is not
fixable, and as I say I doubt it is, and if it
does </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">more
harm then good, then yes, it should be "killed".<br>
</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">But now I am just
asking to put it aside.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"It seems the WBT is
not able to inform us on performance.*[RWL2: </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px"> Please explain
further."*</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">The 10 studies and
Crispin explain it well: we are not sure the WBT
test </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">tells
us how the stove performs.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/*"a) affordability
(the second item in Dr. Chiang?s list)? Do you </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">really wish this in an
ISO test?"*/</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Not really no,
affordability is relative, it should be left to
project </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">leaders,
companies, and the end customers to decide what is
an </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">affordable
stove. I don't believe there are standards for
affordability.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">I am not sure I
understood your first remark, but what I
understood is </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">that you said: "Dr.
Chiang is committed to affordable stoves, so her </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">work on the WBT, and the
WBT as it is now, reflect that". She certainly</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">is, but so are
business and project leaders like Vahid, Camilla, </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">Mouhsine or Sujatha, and
they certainly each have spent much more time </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">working on these issues.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*"I see _NO_ other
way to inform on performance."</span></div>
<div><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*HTP and CSI, and a
few other protocols.*</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">***"There is an
ongoing (even today) WG3 discussion on field
testing*"</span></div>
<div><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*Field testing with
the right protocols, sure, because it is
contextual </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">and
provides a much more accurate picture.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"*Are you
fundamentally opposed to any test placing stoves
into 9 [more </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">or
less] tiers?*"</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">No. It is practical
to have tiers, a bit like energy ratings for </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">refrigerators or light
bulbs. </span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">I am opposed to that
if it is scientifically invalid, like it seems to
be.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">**</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*"And where are you
on including charcoal output in the reporting of </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">performance?"*</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">I have no strong
opinion on that. Tami and Crispin present
convincing </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">arguments.
I agree with you it should be reported, for sure,
but in a </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">scientifically
correct way.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"*b) context? This
is the purview of WG3 - field testing."*</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">Sure, but it is not
the purview of the WBT, that's one of the
problems </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">with
it.*</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">"*shipping? I doubt
you can find any ISO test procedure that includes </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">shipping as an issue."<br>
</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*I am not talking
about shipping, I am talking about developing a
stove </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">by
using the WBT for months, and one day having this
stove being used </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">for real, by real local
cooks, in a completely different geographical </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">and cultural context.
Surprise, surprise.**This is where you get the </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">first
interesting**results.</span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">Contextua<wbr>l testing,
even when performed in a </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">different location,
limits the surprise.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*Don?t you agree that
all the above are best left to the companies and </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">individuals selling
stoves, not those involved in lab (or field)
testing?<br>
</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*Ideally, but in
reality the companies and individuals, to whom I
will </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">add the
large international development and humanitarian
organizations, </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">are very short on time
and staff, and under a lot of pressure. And they </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">are not scientists
(they've been told that well enough). And they
don't </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">have
the equipment. So they delegate the testing to
organizations they </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">trust.**The organizations
they**trust must provide them testing results </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">that can give a fair (it
is never perfect) idea of how their stove will </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">perform for their
context. The WBT does not allow that.</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/*"3) usability, and
*/</span><br style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/*4) access to a
broad range of technology */</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">/*and fuel
opportunities.?*/</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">//</span><br
style="font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-size:12.8px">*I contend, mostly
from several stays at Aprovecho, that lab testing </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">using the WBT, can give
great insight on these as well." <br>
</span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="m_-7436136485407072684gmail-m_6069262050878380885gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><span
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">--------- </span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">(India <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+91%2090999%2052080"
value="+919099952080"
target="_blank">+91) 909 995
2080</a></span><font
face="georgia, serif"><br>
<i> <br>
</i></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>