<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 12 (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;}
@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: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:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texte de bulles Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.TextedebullesCar
{mso-style-name:"Texte de bulles Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texte de bulles";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:894122330;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-468968220 67895299 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</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]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink="#954F72">
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear Kirk,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“I had to fight
tooth and nail with you and Xavier to get tid-bits of information.“<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>I don’t feel it is very
fair. I tried my best to answer all your questions, at length, and provide you
information. As I told you first when you replied to me off-list, I very much
prefer to discuss on-list, as we can all respond and clarify the parts that are
not clear. It is good that you posted this message to the List.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Can you please quote
where you think I was not willingly providing information to you?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>This was my answer to
your questions off-list:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“</span><b>Are the
sensors, filters, and computer graphs included in the
disagreements ? That is a yes or no question.<o:p></o:p></b></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>No, they are not included in the disagreements by the
studies.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>They are nevertheless included in the disagreements by
Crispin. Note that Crispin criticizes the Aprovecho equipment, the PEMS
and LEMS, he says it is not reliable, and he brought evidence on the List.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>Your question is normally, answered. <u>Do you think it
is answered?</u> If not, why?</i><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“</span><b>According
to these two sentences, you are including the sensors and filters (which
measure the CO, CO2, PM and PM 2.5), in the WBT dispute.</b></i><i><span
lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>No, I didn’t include the sensors and filters which
measure the CO, CO2, PM and PM 2.5.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>I included the CO, CO2, PM and PM 2.5 results. It is not
the same.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>So, the sensors, filters, and computer graphs are not
criticized by the studies that say the WBT is unreliable. They do not say the
unreliability comes from that. The unreliability comes from the metrics,
statistical approach, calculations. That does not mean the sensors, filters,
and computer graphs have been proven reliable. They have simply not been the
concern of the studies. <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>Kirk: you cannot isolate the instruments from the WBT.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>What testing protocol does one use the reliable
instruments with? The WBT, or any other testing protocol.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>One cannot use the instruments alone, can
he/she? One has to follow a procedure.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>You could for example ask: « is the water included
in the disagreements? Is the pot? ».<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>No, like the instruments, they are not. But they are
integrate to the protocol. They cannot be dissociated.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>The CO, CO2, PM and PM 2.5 results are obtained by using
the sensors and filters (not disputed) with the metrics and calculations and
statistical approach (disputed).<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>When you mix a healthy ingredient with a poisonous
ingredient, you get a poisonous recipe.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>(sensors and filters) X (unreliable metrics and
calculations and statistical approach) = unreliable results.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>It is the same for a car. A car dashboard may work well,
as well as the steering wheel and the clutch. But if there is a major engine
failure, the whole car doesn’t start. It will not matter that some part of the
car work well: the whole system is not reliable.</i><span lang=EN-US
style='color:black'> “</span><i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>I don’t see what else I
could have done to explain. I also provided you again all the links to the
studies about the WBT issues. You really have to read them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Kirk, you said:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US>“I also believe in different standards
for different purposes.“<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>An utterly unreliable standard serves no
purpose. A broken tool serves no purpose at all. It can bring no good. As
Philip says, a clock that doesn’t tell the time doesn’t help anyone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US>“Perfection is not always needed.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>We are not talking about being perfect. The
WBT is not “not perfect”: it is absolutely broken. No testing protocol is
perfect, but the WBT is the only one being that unreliable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>“</span></i><i><span
lang=EN-US>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.“<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>It actually isn’t helping you, even if it
is not easy to see.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>It is actually really important for your
interests, if you want to make stoves that perform well.<span style='color:
black'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US>“I use it because it is available for me
in a lab, whereas the other protocols are not.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>They are available, right now. They have
always been. They are available here:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><a
href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing</a>
<i><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>You asked me what were the labs performing
the alternative tests, and at what costs, as I said to you, I am collecting the
information and will get back to you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Why do you think they are not available to
you where you are?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Like a WBT, it doesn’t
need much equipment to perform a CSI test. You could perform it at home
probably. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>If I don’t forget
anything, I think the equipment you need is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Courier New";color:black'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>o<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>A
thermocouple connected to a measuring device for determining the water
temperature in the cooking vessel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Courier New";color:black'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>o<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>A ruler or
tape measure for measuring the dimensions of the cooking vessel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Courier New";color:black'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>o<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>A scale of
30 kg capacity with 1 gram resolution for measuring the masses of the cooking
vessels and water loads<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Courier New";color:black'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>o<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>A stopwatch<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>What do you think is currently preventing
you from doing a CSI test?<span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De :</span></b><span
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> mardi 9 janvier 2018 20:12<br>
<b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] WBT disagrements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Crispin,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>I think your question
was appropriate and the answers were hopefully helpful.</span><span lang=EN-US
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>No, you don’t deserve
credit for being helpful. I asked my question and instead of answering it
you projected your agenda into me and proceeded to answer your own projections,
not my question. Without an answer from you I had to make a guess.
You didn’t like my guess and became angry and in that anger actually gave me a
partial answer. You proceeded to push your agenda using me as a pawn, but
not fully answering my question. I had to fight tooth and nail with you
and Xavier to get tid-bits of information. Finally I had enough tid-bits
of information to assemble a coherent answer. The credit is mine for
fighting for an answer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Sent from <a
href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From: </span></b><span lang=EN-US><a
href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:13 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Kirk H.</a>; <a
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] WBT disagrements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Dear
Kirk<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>I
think your question was appropriate and the answers were hopefully helpful.
There are many lab based systems of measurement and sometimes only a few
measurements are necessary to make great progress in improving an existing
product. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Something
that can be separated is this: Aprovecho is not 'the WBT'. What they do and
how they do it is not dependent on using the WBT which is merely a fixed test
sequence with a set of measurements and calculations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Philip's
comment about the WBT telling you whether or not the stove is improved is most
pertinent. If the test didn't tell you how it performed the first time, getting
a different wrong answer later may, or may not, be helpful. This is the crux of
the problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Tuning
a stove requires making refined measurements, not generalizations. A series of
small, say, 3% improvements can result in a 12-15% improvement in fuel consumption
or power change time, or turn down ratio. If the test cannot reliably tell you
the change for better or worse is 1% vs 4%, the results are guiding you by
chance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>A
very carefully done experiment must, not should, deliver reproducible results.
Prof Lloyd has I think been the most specific on this point, much more than
most commenters. As an experimentalist not familiar with small stoves, he was
expecting that stove performance tests would deliver the same sort of
replicability as other physics experiments. The WBT doesn't do that because of
the conceptual errors embedded in what it measures, when, and how it calculates
the outputs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>On
the face of it, why should the calculations make a result variable? Dean once
posted here that if there is a mistake that is applied to every test, then it
is not important. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>The
difficulty is that the mistakes manifest errors unequally in different stove
types, additional to the variability created by conceptual errors. Prof Lloyd
was forced to abandon the WBT in favour of a method without those errors in
order to continue his work. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Thank
you for participating offlist in the discussions. Xavier are I are discussing
the preparation of a spreadsheet with a number of tabs, one each for different
versions of the WBT and CCT. Putting in the lab info from a test will create
copies of the test on each tab with the different calculations so the outputs
can be compared. I think we will be able to find 12 versions of the
calculations, maybe 15.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>We
can also prepare one tab without the errors. This will be the formulas to be
applied that are developed from first principles as per the HTP/CSI where the
requested metric is calculated from only the necessary measurements made to
achieve it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Given
the limitation of the test sequence itself,, high, high, low power, it would
give 'an answer' that could be used to compare the performance of two slightly
different versions of a stove, or different fuels, pots, ambient temperature
and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>In
South Africa, any kerosene stove tested in Johannesburg or similar altitude
must also have an emissions test conducted at a coastal location. Similarly in
reverse. The performance on such a pair of tests must be highly reproducible. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Such
a comparison sheet can be very helpful for convincing the casual user that only
the corrected version should be relied upon. Failing that, we must retire, as
there are always going to be those who will not make the effort to understand
the technicalities of the field in which they choose to dabble. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>After
that comes the issue of contextuality. If the WBT with 'standard wood' is used
to develop a stove that will be used to simmer soup burning dung, there is no
hope. It would be like perfecting a gasoline engine for 89 octane fuel then
operating it with diesel oil. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>All
stoves are used in some context so the assessment will be most relevant, even
for internal metrics for sub-systems, if the test conditions are relevant to
the expected pattern of use. The WBT is advertised as a 'cooking simulation'.
That's OK. Pick and report. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Regards <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'>Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span
lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I believe that Aprovecho (ARC) plays an
important part for wood stove development and education and I remain a
supporter. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Sent from <a
href="https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cae298e4088bd4d17bcf608d5570c4bc2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636510632671079450&sdata=sRvB55V8H7%2BEg%2Ble5sqvvCUuMYdSNAqb9HGdcp%2FP9yM%3D&reserved=0">Mail</a>
for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">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" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>