<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Xavier and list<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>See below</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 27, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Xavier Brandao <<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" class="">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear all,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">That is great news. There is an ISO standard at last.<br class=""><br class="">Congratulations and thanks, really, to all the people who worked on that. I’<br class="">m sure it has been a tough and patient work.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Like Crispin says, time will tell if this new standard does the job, it has<br class="">to be put to the test.<br class=""><br class="">We should remain careful when seeking « harmonization ». We should not try<br class="">to compare apples with oranges.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>[<b class="">RWL1: Probably there are some topics where one can compare apples and oranges. But do you think that it is possible to compare stoves that do and do not intentionally produce charcoal? The new ISO test does that - for which I am grateful (as did the WBT4.2.4).</b></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Ron, a test which allows to heat water is not necessary a WBT. The WBT is a<br class="">certain protocol which heats water. The Water Heating Test is another one.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: The term "WBT" has been used two ways on this list (and many other places). Sometimes to mean WBT4.2.4 and (more often?) a general test. I meant the latter. If you are others only meant WBT4.2.4, then I think we can agree that (not "WBT" in its general sense) will be soon replaced (maybe can call "dead") by the new ISO 19867-1.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The GACC description of the new standard (at </b><a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html" class="">http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html</a> ) <b class="">uses WBT in the general sense, so the term "WBT" is certainly not yet dead at GACC or in the ISO process.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My main point is that the WBT 4.2.4 and ISO 19867-1 both treat produced char in what I believe is the only correct and valuable manner (a "denominator" equation) - as I think should anything called generically a WBT. My rationale: it would be an unnecessary waste of time and effort to have two standards for cookstoves - much as having solar cook stoves also being now covered by ISO 19867-1. </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>We are now also needing to talk about "Tiers" - which are coming along soon in this same process.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">I predict humanity will heat and boil water for cooking in the next, say,<br class="">2000 years or more. If we make it that far.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I hope this standard is the last nail in the WBT coffin.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: I hope you are willing to change your mind on "coffin", per the above. What I do hope will soon be dead is the Chinese stove standard which says to treat intentionally-produced char the same as unburned fuel or ash. I think the same for the South African standard. I can think of no reasonable rationale for such a position.</b><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">I agree with Paul: this document should be free and accessible to all, not<br class="">behind a paywall.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: Me too - but this may hold true for all ISO docs. I have a message in on that.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There is an ISO meeting starting in 90 minutes on the field testing equivalent ISO standard- which does also talk about measuring char. (25 pages just on discussion topics!). I am not competent to be more than an observer there, but hope to pick something up.</b></div><div><br class=""></div><div><b class="">Ron<br class=""></b><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Best,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Xavier<br class=""><br class=""><span id="cid:8C75E09C-4FCB-402A-AA2D-5ACB3FB30045"><winmail.dat></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>