<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>All,</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I recently asked a question about whether the disagreement with the WBT included the sensors, filters and computer graphing as well as the water boiling portion of the overall test. I have received several responses from Crispin and Xavier (some off list). From all that was said by them I have assembled an answer: The sensors, filters and computer read-outs are part of the WBT, but not part of the disagreement with the WBT. So this disagreement is with a portion of the WBT test, not all of it. Also, I believe that Crispin has a second disagreement that questions whether some sensors and setups are able to provide accurate read-outs. I believe that this is a legitimate concern for scientific study, however I also believe in different standards for different purposes. Perfection is not always needed.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is an acceptable answer for me. It is not pro or con to the WBT or any protocol. My question was intentionally neutral. I just wanted to know the extent of the disagreement. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My position on the WBT remains neutral. I use it because it is available for me in a lab, whereas the other protocols are not. The WBT does very well for what I need. It tells me if a change in the stove is helpful or not. Whether or not it is perfect science is not important for my interests. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I believe that Aprovecho (ARC) plays an important part for wood stove development and education and I remain a supporter. </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><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></body></html>