<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=utf-8"><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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:217521684;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1083893374 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:267585580;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2106478492 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2075271160;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1391237004 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I have a question.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>When I test a stove I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along with the pot of water. Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water? The water boiling portion of the overall test appears to attract your attention. How much of the overall test do you disagree with? What do you mean when you disagree with the WBT, are you including the sensors, computer graphs and filters?</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:xav.brandao@gmail.com">Xavier Brandao</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, December 15, 2017 1:45 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">'Ronal W. Larson'</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:winter.julien@gmail.com">'Julien Winter'</a>; <a href="mailto:ndesai@alum.mit.edu">'Nikhil Desai'</a>; <a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">'Crispin Pemberton-Pigott'</a>; <a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">'Discussion of biomass'</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China andcookstoves]</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Ron,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL1: Sorry. I stand by my statement. I meant in the context of arguing about whether the earth is flat or round. More in closing.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Then I don’t know what to say.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>OK, maybe more in closing as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« How are people supposed to know how the WBT works?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL2: I’m trying to hurry this, so I hope others will see if there are others better than found in my google search “water boiling test EPA stoves” »<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I’m not sure I understand what you mean, but there’s one thing that is very clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>When you are a manufacturer or project leader, and you read the WBT protocol and follow it, and record your test results, you have no way to know that the protocol is very broken inside and that its results are meaningless.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You would need to be a researcher knowledgeable about heat principles and test procedures, and to purposely study the WBT, and challenge it, and then only, you can find there’s something wrong with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Hence the high number of tests done with the WBT. People just didn’t know.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>The fact that so many people eat food that was grown while using Monsanto pesticides means that the farmers proved Monsanto pesticides are harmless?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>They’ll know when someone writes a paper on that topic in a peer-reviewed technical journal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Do you think a small company in India or South America scans every week the Elsevier publications to see if a, say, team from Milano published a paper with an obscure title about protocols for cooking stoves?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Or do you think they’ll go to the GACC website, to the page with protocols because the nice lady from GACC told them so at the last conference? Tell me?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I know of no article (hope there is one) on why testing labs get different results than in the field. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>WBT results, not CSI results.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Yet everyone says that WBT get different results in the lab, than in the field, even the Aprovecho.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>When I have watched lab testing, the dedicated tester NEVER left the front of the stove. I’ll bet there are huge differences in the results between rocket and TLD type stoves - as there is almost nothing todo with the latter during a test. </span></i></b><i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Yep, so you just said very well yourself why a WBT is not reliable. So much depends on the cook, and virtually every test is different, because testing conditions fluctuate so much. So comparing WBT results are meaningless. Even for one model tested in the same lab.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>The “who advocated” have overwhelmingly approved it - and are happy with the “state of affairs”.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>They have never reviewed it. Have they really approved it? They just let it spread. And now they are happy, or let’s say they find more convenient to remain silent and not admit their mistake.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Who says the WBT is a good protocol? No one except you.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Where do I go to find a corroboration of your version of this (sinister?) “group of people”?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>There is no sinister group of people. Back in 1982, there was, I’m sure, committed individuals who wanted and needed a testing protocol. That was I believe the VITA NGO, that was Sam Baldwin.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>It’s fine, it was needed, I have no problem with that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>It is the following years that were problematic, when cookstove testers and researchers started to be warned with the serious issues of the WBT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« « I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Why? Please explain.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL6: I gave a full set of reasons, which are following as Ia-If and IIa-IId (which labels I wish you had kept - to save me time) »<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I read your reasons, and they haven’t convinced me at all. You have completely occulted the questions I asked you.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>There are several issues, you are not able to say they don’t exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You cannot deny the issues, you cannot answer my questions, so you just don’t avoid speaking about them, you talk about something else instead.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Answer each one of my questions and prove with undeniable evidence that the WBT is a reliable protocol. Then my position on the WBT will have become devoid of value.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>You underestimate the group you are maligning<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Who reviewed the WBT Ron? Where are the peer-reviewed publications?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Care to give any names for this group that has never studied the WBT?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>The EPA, the GACC, the Aprovecho Research Center, the D-Lab, Winrock. Probably others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Strong warnings were emitted, proofs about the WBT issues piled, but they never put it into question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>The food was poisoned, yet they chose no to look at them and keep serving them. They never asked or worked on a review of the WBT, nor on a mere study of the WBT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>That was their jobs, they are paid for that, they chose not to do it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL8(a): Many dozens of experts have approved it over the last several years in the ISO process. Where have you received your version of the voting? We are talking here of I believe 25 countries.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br><b>Who? When? Give names, give me documents.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Ron, I hope, I really hope you are not talking about the Lima consensus, and the signing of the IWA, because I was at the latter, and we all agree it was forced-fed to us.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>We were pressed during the whole workshop to adopt a text, even imperfect, so we could correct it later on. We were pressed to sign, because it was said it was be the only way forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>We never ever wrote the sentence « the WBT is not the only valid protocol ».<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Don’t try to dishonestly take that as a proof that dozens of « « experts » » have reviewed the WBT, approved it, and still approve it. Because it is a misrepresentation of the truth Ron, it is a big lie.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Where is the evidence that the WBT is so bad?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You must be kidding.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I showed you the evidence so many times Ron, but you refuse to see it and brush it off every time. That is intellectual dishonesty.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>« Some of WBT critical issues remain unsolved. In particular, the main weakness of the WBT concerns its real-life relevance. […] Criticism about WBT concerns also the repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers claiming that it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy. […] As a matter of fact, uncertainties related to temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region lead to high variability between test replicates. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>A lot of debate has been made around formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency, which is often interpreted as the most immediate and distinctive stove performance parameter. Studies from Bailis et al. highlighted how relying on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of high and low power cooking tasks <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>among the target population, can lead to misleading interpretations. Furthermore, Zhang et al. and Jetter et al. questioned the scientific meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at simmering. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Finally, some unsolved issues concerning statistical significance of data are worth mentioning. WBT 4.2.3 includes “Statistic Lessons for Performance Testing”. The appendix specifies that the minimum number of test replicates for each model of stove should be three, […] Wang et al. investigated this topic using a simplified version of the WBT 3.0 and demonstrated that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that even more replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in performance between two or more stoves. »<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Lombardi F., Riva F., Bonamini G., Barbieri J., Colombo E., Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments, 06/02/2017 <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Lombardi F., Riva F., Colombo E., Guidelines for reporting and analysing laboratory test results for biomass cooking stoves, 01/2017 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312849490_Guidelines_for_reporting_an</a> d_analysing_laboratory_test_results_for_biomass_cooking_stoves <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Riva F., Lombardi F., Pavarini C., Colombo E., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves, 09/07/2016 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_</a> of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three__Stone_fire_cookstoves <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Bailis R., Berrueta V., Chengappa C., Dutta K., Edwards R., Masera O., Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70., 2007 <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type</a> =pdf <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Pendelton Taylor R., The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, 2009 <a href="http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd">http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>L’Orange C., DeFoort M., Willson B., Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and development of an improved testing protocol, 2009 <a href="https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf">https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testingparameters.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Gorrity M., Trujillo G., Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of expanded uncertainty for WBT, 2013 <a href="http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%252">http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%2</a> 0Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%2 0Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Ding H., Liu J., Zhang Y., Dong R., Pang C., Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols, 2013 <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&ty</a> pe=pdf <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Zhang Y., Pemberton-Pigott C., Zhang Z., Ding H., Zhou Y., Dong R., Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11., 2014 <a href="http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/">http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/</a> To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged alphabetically). <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Wang Y., Sohn MD., How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate., 2014 <a href="http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf">http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-etal._final.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Lloyd P., Annegarn H., Pemberton-Pigott C., Towards a standard for clean solidfuelled cookstoves, 2015 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cle</a> an_solid-fuelled_cookstoves <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.5pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Zhou Y., Riaz A., Pemberton-Pigott C., Annegarn H., Dong R., Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves, 2016 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_</a> errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>What do you do of all that Ron?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Where do you get your information that researchers were so lax?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Dan Sweeney writes a complacent handbook with not one mention of the WBT issues. Same with Winrock. Aprovecho continues to deceiptfully provide « « ISO » » testing certificates based on a testing protocol that is useless.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I continue to believe in my friends<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>That’s what it is all about. Beliefs. Faith. Not facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Even friends make mistakes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You say great injustice is done to your friends who kept advocating the use of the WBT despite all the warnings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You feel the need to be very laudable towards them. Be my guest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I’ll tell you, I’m sure they are fine people. They probably are hardworking, nice and polite, help their neighbours, give their sit to the old ladies in the bus, and probably truly would like the world to be a better place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>It’s super.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You can decide to write pages and pages of praises to them if you want, but this is not really helping our discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL13(e):<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL14e:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>No, I have zero opinion about the DE.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>If it is a solid equation that is important to take into account the benefits of the TLUDs, fine, then it could also be part of another protocol.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>It doesn’t change anything to how faulty the WBT is. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL15e: I hope I don’t have to repeat many more times that it IS reliable - and you have not proven the converse.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br>Yes I did prove it was unrealiable, but you weren’t listening. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>You have not proven it is reliable. At this point, we are more talking about faith than anything else.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL16(f): I’m glad to hear some of this from you. Thanks. I am referring to remarks by Crispin - and hope others can give an exact quote his in the last two weeks - on not needing a laboratory.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I did NOT refuse to read the CSI and HTP; I have read them. I do not claim to be an expert on them - but am pretty sure they heat water (I can’t keep all the acronyms straight). Please give cites for each - and I’ll report back to this list on their use of heating water (e1) and measuring char (e2). Inexplicably, there are some test procedures that seem to feel that charcoal is a made-up entity, that never needed to be measured.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>OK, maybe we are making some progress then.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Yes, the other lab protocols heat water.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>No, they are not unreliable like the WBT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If you were a major sponsor or stove buyer, would you prefer to know Tier levels or not?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If you believe stoves have health impacts, would you pay attention to Tier levels? <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Yes, they are quite convenient.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>If they mean nothing, I certainly wouldn’t want to hear about them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>How are you going to get repeatability on pollutant release without a WBT?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>With the CSI protocol, for example.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'>[RWL:(19c): I’ll continue my practice of not naming such. But they tend to talk about the beauty of coal-fired stoves. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The “ acts” come from what they say on this list and off-line conversations over about 10 years. I suggest looking at who refers us to the “Watt’s Up With That” site (the site given most credit in denier circles)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>A denier might be wrong on climate, but right on something else.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>If Crispin tells you something about cookstoves, will you always say he is wrong, because he is a denier?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Crispin is not always right, he also makes mistakes. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Has he not been right quite a number of times in this list, on various subjects?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Don’t judge the message by how the messenger look. Analyse and countradict the facts only.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL20 (d): TLUD stoves have had only a very limited testing period where the char was placed in soil. Dr. Winter greatly surprise me last week when he told us how much the soil improvement spect of his stove has influenced consumer reaction. Users were making money while cooking.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If there were no Tier system giving (appropriate and accurate) value to char-making, then those stoves and users would not receive the credit they deserve (and the world needs) for carbon removal.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Would Julien Winter have developed his stove without Tiers or the WBT, but with a more reliable testing protocol? Maybe, maybe not? I’d love to hear his take on that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I specifically asked the main author whether he concerns about the WBT itself and he said no.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Who was it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I also believe that everyone has and should have emotions. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Yes, but they shouldn’t cloud one’s judgement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I think they cloud yours.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I go back to whether you would say the same if we were arguing about the earth’s sphericity?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I say the Earth is spheric because there are studies and empirical evidences it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>I don’t say Earth is spheric because everyone say so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You don’t say the WBT is a reliable protocol because there are studies and proofs it is. It was never reviewed. You have no study Ron, which will conclude: « after careful reviewing of the WBT, its metrics and calculations, we can now say with very strong confidence that the testing protocol can reliably predict stove performance. »<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>You say it is reliable because everyone used it, and many still use it. Note that no one affirms now the WBT is reliable. But everyone used and use it out of habit or because it is convenient or because the GACC and the TC-285 didn’t tell them they could <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Do you see the difference?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Ron, what you do is a logical fallacy, this is something that you keep doing, it is called Appeal to the People.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtothePeople">http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtothePeople</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Or Ad Numerum, Appeal to the Gallery, Appeal to the Masses, Argument from Popularity, Argumentum ad Populum, Common Practice, Mob Appeal, Past Practice, Peer Pressure, and Traditional Wisdom<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Maybe the majority is right regarding climate change, the Earth sphericity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Maybe the majority using the WBT was wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Anyway, I’m gonna do my own appeal to the people, because this is the only kind of argument that you hear. As I said before: there is now a majority of people who think it is not reliable and we should stop using it rather than people who think it is reliable and we should keep using it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Remember Ron, before the Earth was considered spheric, maybe there was a majority of people saying it was flat.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Would you have shouted with them it was flat, if you lived at that time?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>But there are questions whether this debate of flat vs spheric really existed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>What there was, was a majority of people believing the Sun was rotating around the Earth. Copernic was alone to think, yet he was right.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Would you have said like everyone else Ron, that the Sun was rotating around the Earth?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>There’s no merit in sheepish behaviour. It has rarely been synonym of scientific progress.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Now the only important question remains: is there a serious problem with the WBT and should we stop using it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>The answer will be respectively no and yes, when we will have responded to these questions Ron, and I am counting on you:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you contest the issues about the real-life relevance of the WBT? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What do you think about the WBT concerns on the repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers claiming that it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you contest there are uncertainties related to temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region that lead to high variability between test replicates? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What do you think about the formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency ? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you contest that relying on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of high and low power cooking tasks among the target population, can lead to misleading interpretations? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Don’t you question the scientific meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at simmering? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you contest there are unsolved issues concerning statistical significance of data ? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you contest the demonstration that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that even more replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in performance between two or more stoves? Why?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>And again, my last question:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Who reviewed the WBT Ron? Where are the peer-reviewed publications who have demonstrated the WBT is a reliable testing protocol?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><br>Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>De :</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net] <br><b>Envoyé :</b> mardi 12 décembre 2017 06:43<br><b>À :</b> Xavier Brandao<br><b>Cc :</b> Discussion of biomass; Nikhil Desai; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Paul Anderson; Julien Winter<br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Hi all - see inserts below:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>On Dec 11, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Xavier Brandao <<a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com">xav.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Ron,</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>You have gone pretty far in the past with fallacious reasoning, but this email takes the cake. We are now in uncharted territory.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Basically, this is your whole argumentation here:</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>"I say they are valid because they are so widely used"</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Ron, please re-read 7 times this sentence out loud just to measure how ridiculous it is.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I'll tell you other things people widely do:</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>People widely eat McDonalds</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>People widely believe in sorcery and spirits</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>People widely believe in different kind of gods</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>People widely believed the sun was rotating around the Earth</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>So many people can’t be wrong, ain't it?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL1: Sorry. I stand by my statement. I meant in the context of arguing about whether the earth is flat or round. More in closing.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>How are people supposed to know how the WBT works?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL2: I’m trying to hurry this, so I hope others will see if there are others better than found in my google search “<i>water boiling test EPA stoves”</i></span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>How are they supposed to know that it is not reliable?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL3: They’ll know when someone writes a paper on that topic in a peer-reviewed technical journal. I know of no article (hope there is one) on why testing labs get different results than in the field. But a big part has to be how good the testing labs are. I doubt there are many cases when the testing lab gives the lower efficiency. When I have watched lab testing, the dedicated tester NEVER left the front of the stove. I’ll bet there are huge differences in the results between rocket and TLD type stoves - as there is almost nothing todo with the latter during a test. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Those who advocate(d) for the WBT while aware of the issues are responsible of this state of affairs.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL4: The “who advocated” have overwhelmingly approved it - and are happy with the “state of affairs”.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I'll tell you what happened. A group of people invented the WBT. There was nothing at the time, some protocol had to be created and used. It's perfectly fine. Then more people started to use it. Without reviewing it. Testing reports started to pile. At some point, a few studies started to be published pointing at some serious flaws in the WBT. No one bothered about that, the WBT continued to be used, reports kept piling. Then more studies, on other issues, were published. Still no one was taking action. Sunk cost. The further you go, the more difficult it is to go back. The WBT has never been reviewed, except by the studies I was mentioning, and they all say there are serious problems with it.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL5: I gave a reference a few months ago to Dr. Bond that was about 100 years old using the WBT - with the “DE”. Where do I go to find a corroboration of your version of this (sinister?) “group of people”?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Why? Please explain.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL6: I gave a full set of reasons, which are following as Ia-If and IIa-IId (which labels I wish you had kept - to save me time)</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its validity. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Of course, they have never studied the WBT, never reviewed it!</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL7(a): You underestimate the group you are maligning. Care to give any names for this group that has never studied the WBT?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>They have been told to use the WBT, so they tested, and they reported. The WBT was supposed to have had the state-of-the-art research and updates, why would they not use it?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL8(a): Many dozens of experts have approved it over the last several years in the ISO process. Where have you received your version of the voting? We are talking here of I believe 25 countries.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« I know of no article in a peer-reviewed technical journal that gives a rationale for WBT or DE’s discontinuation. The topic seems unique to this list »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>If something is not in a peer-reviewed technical journal, it doesn’t exist?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL9(b): No it can exist - just not to be believed whole cloth. Where is the evidence that the WBT is so bad?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>There is a serious rationale explaining the problems and why the WBT is broken. The peer-reviewed articles explain why it is not reliable.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL10(b): It may exist, but you haven’t told where to find these article are on unreliability..</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>There is one little more step to take, and this step, researchers are not willing to take it. </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL11(b): I claim they have been taken - and we will see it when the WGII report is released. Where do you get your information that researchers were so lax?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Because it is not their job, or so they think. Scientists usually think their role is to state facts. From facts, conclusions and actions can be taken.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>This step is left to political actors, NGOs like Winrock, international organizations like GACC, implementers, or activists.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL12(b): I continue to believe in my friends - AND because I have seen nothing in print to deny what they tell me. I know a lot of scientists and none fit your description; they do a lot more than “state facts”.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>NOTE: My items c and d are missing. They are (important-to-me) references to the ISO process - which you are saying is wrong. You need these to understand my point (e), coming up.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« I say misinformed because both Professor Phillip Lloyd and Crispin showed a few months ago they did not know how to use the DE, (Dr. Lloyd pulled an arbitrary number out of the air in his use of the equation). »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>How so? How should the DE be used then?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL13(e): Just as it has been proposed for about a century in hundreds of papers: e3=e1/(1-e2). A VERY solid equation where every term is understood - including the negative sign. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I have not had time to work up a proof using a triangular plot - the three corners are A= e1 = stove energy; B=e2 = charcoal energy; C= inefficiency. The sum of A+B+C anywhere in the interior of the triangle is unity. The input energy can ONLY go these three ways. I’m trying to get time to show where the DE shows up on this chart. You can’t do this on normal x-y plots. I hope someone will take this hint and beat me to it.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>The DE tells one how to move from the middle of the triangle to the edge where B = e2 = 0.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I challenge you and anyone on the list to give any other formula that fairly gives credit to a co-product that can have value (in some cases) large than the cooking value. In the case of a few percentage of char, it is the ONLY way to give a valid (larger) value for e1.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>You talk a lot about the Denominator Equation, but to me, it is another matter. I don’t have an opinion about it, and I haven’t seen convincing facts from you who put into question what Tami and Crispin said.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL14e: I know you talk to Crispin who has argued strongly against the DE, but I doubt Dr. Bond is in agreement. The “convincing facts” are in the triangle diagram - plus common sense and the agreement of the vast majority of those who have fought to keep the DE in place. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>It does seem to me that you have a strong opinion on it.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>You can continue the conversation about the DE with them, but whether the DE is valid or not has no impact on all the other questions about the unreliability of the WBT.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>With or without the DE, the WBT is unreliable.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL15e: I hope I don’t have to repeat many more times that it IS reliable - and you have not proven the converse.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT) are unnecessary. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Who said that? Certainly not me nor the proponents of alternative testing. Laboratory testing is useful, and laboratories are useful. The WBT is not. CSI and HTP are laboratory protocols. You refused to read these protocols.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL16(f): I’m glad to hear some of this from you. Thanks. I am referring to remarks by Crispin - and hope others can give an exact quote his in the last two weeks - on not needing a laboratory.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I did NOT refuse to read the CSI and HTP; I have read them. I do not claim to be an expert on them - but am pretty sure they heat water (I can’t keep all the acronyms straight). Please give cites for each - and I’ll report back to this list on their use of heating water (e1) and measuring char (e2). Inexplicably, there are some test procedures that seem to feel that charcoal is a made-up entity, that never needed to be measured.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Note to others: My point (g) is also missing - on the DE - where I said what I just repeated.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>The following are my four points on the Tier system.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn out well using the DE. Exceedingly well. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Not sure this in a paper would pass the peer-reviewing …</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL17(a): Me either. I am here telling everyone where I am coming from - that Tiers are important to me (And thankfully they have NOT been dropped). Without the Tier system, I am sure there would be much less progress. (Thinking here of a message tonight from Kirk Harris.)</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If you were a major sponsor or stove buyer, would you prefer to know Tier levels or not?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If you believe stoves have health impacts, would you pay attention to Tier levels? How are you going to get repeatability on pollutant release without a WBT?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« It seems that those who argue against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Who then? Give names. Stop just making allegations.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL18(b): I ask anyone who is a supporter of TLUDs whether they also oppose Tiers. We all know that winners rarely critique the rules. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I chose not to embarrass anyone specific. Do you really think I made a mistake there?</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« I do so now for climate reasons (earlier for forest preservation, health, time-saving and money-making reasons). My experience on this list is that a large majority of those who put down the WBT and the DE have zero concern about the climate impacts of inefficient and polluting stoves (and especially charcoal-using stoves). Such beliefs lack appreciation of climate science; those persons must also have other motives - probably money related. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Please say who are those persons and what are those other motives? Do you have facts corroborating that?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'>[RWL:(19c): I’ll continue my practice of not naming such. But they tend to talk about the beauty of coal-fired stoves. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The “ acts” come from what they say on this list and off-line conversations over about 10 years. I suggest looking at who refers us to the “Watt’s Up With That” site (the site given most credit in denier circles)</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:11.5pt;color:#1F497D'><br><br></span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>« This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that fully justifies use of the WBT and DE. »</span></i><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>How? Can you explain?</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL20 (d): TLUD stoves have had only a very limited testing period where the char was placed in soil. Dr. Winter greatly surprise me last week when he told us how much the soil improvement spect of his stove has influenced consumer reaction. Users were making money while cooking.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>If there were no Tier system giving (appropriate and accurate) value to char-making, then those stoves and users would not receive the credit they deserve (and the world needs) for carbon removal.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I’ll tell you something Ron, just to make things very clear:</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I think the TLUD technology is by far the most exciting and promising stove technology right now, and that includes the char-making stoves</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span lang=FR style='font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it is one of the main threats for the humanity and other living species on this planet</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL20: Thanks for the clarification. I had not been thinking of you in the WUWT camp</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>All that is beyond the point.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL21: Nope - it is my main point.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>We are now talking about the WBT, and there are scientific facts showing it is unreliable, and so far you haven’t been able to reply to my questions, and to prove these facts wrong.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL22: If you provided any scientific facts above I failed to see them. The main peer-reviewed paper claiming anything like this was saying there need to be more replications. I specifically asked the main author whether he concerns about the WBT itself and he said no. I asked for specifics and you have provided none.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Ron, you are supposed to be a scientist, to have a critical mind, to judge on facts only, and not on trends nor emotions.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL23: Yup my point IIa was supposed to tell everyone that this is a topic on which I get emotional. That does not mean that I should or did or would want to ignore facts. I think I have provide plenty above. You have not. I’m waiting. </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I also believe that everyone has and should have emotions. It wouldn’t surprise me that some of the best papers come from those with emotional attachments.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I should also admit here that I get emotional when people like Nikhil give no credit to anything that EPA (mostly the EPA stove group can be called scientists). He is not acting in a scientific manner at all (close to zero reference to peer-reviewed literature). Same for his critique of GACC - totally unwarranted (and emotional and un-scientific). </span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Please let’s discuss facts.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>This sentence: « they are valid because they are so widely used » would have founding fathers and mothers of science throw themselves out the window, if they could.</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></span><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>[RWL: I go back to whether you would say the same if we were arguing about the earth’s sphericity? You are arguing against a position which has major support in the stove improvement community. I’m glad you are not a denier, but your argument against terms like “97%” are exactly those of deniers. I repeat: show me a cogent article in print on why the WBT (and the DE) should not be accepted without reservation.</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Ron</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>(re-read, but I have to stop now, given the hour.)</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Best,</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><br>Xavier</span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 style='border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt'><tr><td width=55 style='width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=46 height=29 style='width:.4833in;height:.3in' id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td width=470 style='width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:13.5pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E'>Garanti sans virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></table></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>