<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;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for your response. My question was if the disagreement was with all parts of the test or just the water boiling part. I guess your answer means that the disagreement is with all parts of the test including the CO sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate sensors and the weighing of the filters, as well as the water boiling portion. When you say WBT, you mean all of this, not just the water boiling in the pot. I also assume that the CCT is included in this, since your response did not exclude it. But since I have nothing else available for my use I will continue as is.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was using my stove to compare only because it and the fuel were constant between Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not to flaunt it as a clean stove. Sorry about the misunderstanding. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk H.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Stoves</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Kirk<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>No thinks your stove isn't 'clean and efficient'. In truth we don't know what the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets for it are not available from Aprovecho (so you said when I asked) and LBNL not only doesn't share the spreadsheet behind the performance claims, they do their own evaluation using their own method (I wrote to them and asked specifically about your stove).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the real world. This is simply unacceptable. We do not accept anyone's performance rating for which we do know know the method and calculations. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Similarly, the calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in accordance with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of any stove test to see). <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The ratings provided by LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual performance on the WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I have no need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the cooking cycle or the calculations OD the WBT. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I do know that both those labs report using IWA metrics without any caution that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered is of questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer of the information is left with the impression that the numbers are meaningful which they may not be. To me that is at least, deceptive because both labs ae aware of the controversy and implications for the product ratings. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>It is telling that students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in view of the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The WBT should be eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable in the strictest sense of the word. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regards <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Xavier,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am surprised to read that you don’t know whether you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the water boiling portion of the test. I did not specify Aprovecho’s equipment in my question. I tested the same stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very clean stove. Does the disagreement include Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water portion of the test? What exactly do those who disagree with the WBT, disagree with, just the water boiling portion of the test or the overall test? Is the Controlled Cooking portion of the test also included in this disagreement?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0">Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com">Xavier Brandao</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Kirk,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>“Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling water?“</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>I don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the measurements from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Other than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at Prakti, and I believe there are other cases where it happened.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><br>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Xavier</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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'> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>De la part de</b> Kirk H.<br><b>Envoyé :</b> samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55<br><b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China andcookstoves]</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have a question.<o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0">Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR> </span><o:p></o:p></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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0" 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank"><span style='color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a> </span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>