<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I thank Crispin for writing:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The Chinese test is very simple and contains
only one mathematical error (double counting the energy gained by
the pot between 95 and 100 C).
</blockquote>
Maybe more comments about that. I saw their formula, and the word
"simple" did not come to mind.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> [Compared to other tests], the Chinese test
which consistently produced higher values across the board. We
find this very interesting. The Chinese test is intended for high
mass stoves – certainly higher than the WBT’s typical targets
which in China are called ‘Picnic Stoves’. The impact of the high
mass is reflected in the Chinese result which credits simmering
without no fire.</blockquote>
INTENDED FOR HIGH MASS STOVES. This is another likely reason why
the Chinese research on a TLUD stove with pellets gave such LOW (not
high) results on efficiency.<br>
<br>
VAST differences when stove types can be called "picnic stoves" (I
really link that descriptor) and "(pick your descriptor that means
heavy, not-portable, build-in-with-chimney, dual purpose
heating-and-cooking, multi-hour-operational, and comparatively
expensive) stoves." BOTH types have their places. A tack-hammer
and a mallet and a sledge hammer are really the same in function (to
hit things), but testing them probably should be differently
appropriate for each type.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/17/2017 1:06 AM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR22MB078482306BB033442A72C0B9B1090@MWHPR22MB0784.namprd22.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.gmail-m1991595890816289277msolistparagraph, li.gmail-m1991595890816289277msolistparagraph, div.gmail-m1991595890816289277msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_1991595890816289277msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.gmail-msonormal, li.gmail-msonormal, div.gmail-msonormal
{mso-style-name:gmail-msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.gmail-
{mso-style-name:gmail-;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
p.gmail-m3466660585400135657gmail-msonormal, li.gmail-m3466660585400135657gmail-msonormal, div.gmail-m3466660585400135657gmail-msonormal
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_3466660585400135657gmail-msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Nikhil</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In answer to questions below and earlier
questions you posed about the WBT’s ethnicity:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR22MB078482306BB033442A72C0B9B1090@MWHPR22MB0784.namprd22.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1"><snip><br>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<br>
Who was harmed by the WBT? The entire cooking stove industry.
Every donor, every stove recipient. Through ignorance or
design, the WBT has been impressed upon the stove programmes
outside China and India. India’s test is hardly better: though
it does a creditable job on the cooking efficiency metric, it
is worse on contextuality (because of the fuel and fueling
procedure used). The Chinese test is very simple and contains
only one mathematical error (double counting the energy gained
by the pot between 95 and 100 C).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Several papers from the China Agricultural
University’s Renewable Energy Research group in the College of
Engineering have been written comparing the results obtained
by test methods from India, China, Cambodia, South Africa and
the WBT. Once corrections for different conceptual errors
were made, the methods of calculating the fuel efficiency were
in significant agreement, save for the Chinese test which
consistently produced higher values across the board. We find
this very interesting. The Chinese test is intended for high
mass stoves – certainly higher than the WBT’s typical targets
which in China are called ‘Picnic Stoves’. The impact of the
high mass is reflected in the Chinese result which credits
simmering without no fire.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It may well be that with other test protocols we might get
more reliable efficiency estimates, I don't know about PM2.5
estimates - or whether the WHO Tier 4 target set with a
fatally flawed test method and seriously compromised "single
box" air circulation model can be met at all. Shouldn't we
worry about exposures rather than hourly average emission
rates? As soon as one accepts that is the real problem to
quantify, the stove test is distinct from it. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<snip><br>
</body>
</html>