<html 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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>All,</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I cannot comment on the legalities of your discussion, but I can tell you about my experiences with Aprovecho’s testing equipment. Dean Still has offered the use of Aprovecho’s lab to others as well as myself. He tells me that I am the only one who ever took him up on it. I spent two weeks at Aprovecho in March of 2016, using their equipment to improve the turn-down and emissions of my TLUD-ND. I repeatedly tested iterations under the hood. The resultant stove finally worked as desired, being able to burn clean at various power levels. Dean then gave me a test at Lawrence Berkley National Labs burn lab which Aprovecho had received in an EPA grant. The stove tested at tier 4 in most catigories. This would not have been possible without Aprovecho. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I noted that Aprovecho’s equipment was not as sensitive as Berkley’s, but it was also a fraction of the cost to build. If used properly there is a place for both types of equipment. Apro’s equipment is excellent for pounding away at a problem and cleaning up the stove. Berkeley’s equipment is great for getting final detailed lab test results. I don’t see one as being good and the other bad, but that each has it’s strengths and its place.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk H.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, October 18, 2017 11:44 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking stoves</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:deankstill@gmail.com">Dean Still</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Aprovecho's ISO certificates</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Dear Nikhil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>>Trustworthiness does not come by claims alone. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Fair comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>>I believe EPA did go to UL for certifying cookstoves. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>I was not aware of that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>>Maybe, after the ISO issues standards of performance from TC-285, US would incorporate them in law and then approve UL, Aprovecho, or other suitable body for testing and certification. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>ANSI, headed by John Mitchell from EPA, declared at the very beginning that the USA would not be using the product of ISO TC-285, even though they are co-sponsors of its creation. France commenting on the creation of the TC, questioned whether the result would affect existing regulations governing cooking appliances in Europe (which are covered by an omnibus standard for all stoves). That comment was addressed by saying the TC-285 product was for use by developing countries, which excludes France and the USA. I have no idea how the ISO determines which counties are ‘developing’ ones, nor where there should be different ISO standards for developed and developing countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>>When a product manufacturer's claims fail, the buyer ought to have legal recourse in addition to merely voting with money. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>I guess there are two targets for such ire: the vendor making claims that are not valid, and the lab that certified that it has the performance claimed. If a claim is outside the Limit of Quantification of the apparatus, then <i>a priori</i> it is not a valid claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>>The manufacturer then cannot hide by merely appealing to UL certification. A court would hold UL liable if it made a finding that UL used improper protocol - not an "industry standard" - or wrong equipment. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Well, the relevant way to talk about it is: is someone is using a pre-2016 LEMS and making claims that a stove ‘performs at tier 4’ for some or other measurement, say PM<sub>2.5</sub>, then someone’s leg is being pulled. It is not ‘wrong equipment’ it is that equipment has limits with respect to detection and quantification, and there are standards ways to rate it. Nothing about this is unusual. That is how equipment ratings are done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA><br>> "</span><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>Anyone can claim to be following any protocol they like." </span><span lang=EN-CA>What do you think - Gold Standard would be next, or GACC, or me? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>You are free-with-abandon to invent your own test method and assemble equipment and make claims within the constraints of the equipment and protocol. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA><br>>UNF could. If it is an "international organization", it may be above US jurisdiction for certain liabilities. I will have to look up the IO law. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>I understand there is a legal USA definition of an IO. Surely there is also an international one?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><br>Regards<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>