<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=""><div class="">Paul and ccs</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Shanks for the positive response. See few inserts.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 3, 2018, at 6:31 AM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" class="">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Ron,<br class="">
<br class="">
Thanks for that well-stated reply. I hope that many readers will
digest what you have presented.<br class="">
<br class="">
My comments are restriced to only the discussion of equations and
their meanings. (How we arrive at 50 million char-making stoves is
a vastely dirrerent topic.)<br class="">
<br class="">
The explanation by equations might be better understood or at least
illustrated with a few sets of number based on actual stove typess
(see reference to the triangular graph mentioned in your
message.). <br class="">
<br class="">
You wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">To repeat, the equation under
discussion is used without apology throughout the new ISO
19867-1 document. <br class="">
</b></blockquote>
Maybe give a few specific references / page numbers. But I for one
will not be checking that.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">I believe I have stated that the
correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in part because it is identical
to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency and B = A+C+D - as can
be deduced from viewing what's going on in a triangular
diagram. <br class="">
</b></blockquote>
Maybe it is time to show such a triangular diagram (in which any
position in the triangle shows the three numbers that total
100%). What are the three components? You have 4 letteres A
B C D. and what does each one mean in the real world? I am
trying to understand the concept of D as "inefficiency", which is
being added to A, but D is a negative number .<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL1: D is positive. It is what is left after subtracting A (the desired stove energy) and C (the charcoal energy) from B (the input fuel energy). The WBT reports A, B, and C. As you point out, it is easier to think B = 1, and A, C, D are then percentages.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>D is perhaps the most important number of them all, and is rarely reported. All stovers are trying to make this number small.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I spent many weeks trying to get something meaningful out of ordinary X, Y, Z orthogonal charts - and finally stumbled on the triangular plot. Googling for triangular plots via Excel gives a few choices (I haven't found one exactly right). If someone sends me A, B, and C data - I'll send back the graphical version.</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
I am guessing that the produced charcoal (Just just happens to be
convieniently called "C") is zero for sstoves that do not produce
char and something like 20% if measured as weight or 30% if measured
as energy. Is this making sense? Please explain further.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">RWL2: Yes that makes sense. But I hear 40% for energy is a possibility.</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><b class="">And Crispin continues to
mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the efficiency for the test
providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of what would be
expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced. </b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Further elaboration on that would be helpful.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL3. I don't know more to say. Sorry. I'll look for someone else's description of the result of applying this equation. If not this one for entering a value in the Tiers, then what is the right equation?</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class="">Ron</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class="">Ron<br class=""></b><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<br class="">
Paul<br class="">
<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 7/3/2018 1:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D4DEDCA5-AE92-4ABA-BB0E-B6EE27DD3180@comcast.net" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
Nikhil, cc list and Crispin
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">See inserts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <br class="">
<br class="">
A billion dollar question — what difference does all
this make and to whom? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL1: I respond assuming by "all this" that you
mean my 10 responses to Crispin. Summarizing those 10 is
relatively easy - the only (repeat </b><u class=""><b class="">only)</b></u><b class=""> sentence below (the
second sentence I asked under RWL1) - to which Crispin did </b><u style="font-weight: bold;" class="">not</u><b class="">
later reply (61 minutes after yours - i.e. at 9:16 PM
Mountain time): </b><b class=""> I said: "<i class="">Please
explain what equation you would give for this answer for a
stove that has intentionally made char."</i></b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><i class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></i></b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Since
he chose not to give us an answer on the 28th, this will
give him (and I hope you and others) another shot at an
approach alternative to that in wide and continuing use. I
expect no answer from Crispin, since he apparently disputes
the validity of even trying. To repeat, the equation under
discussion is used without apology throughout the new ISO
19867-1 document. I believe I have stated that the
correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in part because it is
identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency and B =
A+C+D - as can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a
triangular diagram. And Crispin continues to mis-state what
e3 is. It is NOT the efficiency for the test providing A,B,
and C. It is a statement of what would be expected if char
(variable C) had NOT been produced. I ask Crispin again to
supply a better statement for what the efficiency would be
if char had not been produced. Ot alternatively, what
equation would he use to compare char-making stoves with all
others?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The
above was only to set the stage for my (and I hope to hear
from others) answers to your important questions: "what
differences and who cares". Tor me, the difference is
largely in whether we are able to assign tiers. If you
(anyone) don't think it important (or wise or permissible)
to compare a char-making stove to a non-char-making stove,
you (anyone) will reject tiers. It is much easier to
reject tiers if you can discredit the equation (the only
equation) that allows comparisons. The concept of tiers
was endorsed (I think) unanimously in Lima some 5-6 years
ago. And this question was known fully at that time. I
think tiers are critical to stove improvement.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
contend that even if there were no such thing as tiers, it
would still be helpful to have this denominator equation -
as the equation contains the terms showing exactly where the
energy is distributed. If you don't measure the weight, you
won't know the energy in the char - and you can have no idea
of the true inefficiencies.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Lastly
- "to whom": This equation and the tier system it allows
is obviously important information to both buyers and
sellers. Char-making started off (early 1990's) being
interesting to me as a way of helping remove pressure on
forests, where traditional char-making is often now illegal
- because traditional char-making is so wasteful (and
harmful to the environment in many ways). Next came a
period of selling char-making stoves on health grounds -
still the primary interest of many stove activists. Next
came a period of realizing that stoves that make char are
also time savers. And of course, my present emphasis on the
carbon-negativity aspects of char-making stoves. I contend
all of these positive attributes that follow from the simple
equation A/(B-C) = A/(A+D) should be important to something
approaching 100% of the global population. Who should not
want a stove that accomplishes all those ends?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(Aside
- I learned this week of a char-making stove design that has
MUCH larger turn-down ratio. In a month or so, we should
all hear more.)</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">And when will the cooks know?<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL2: Very shortly after we have international
agreement on a tax/fee/subsidy available to technologies
that are carbon negative. When do you think that might
occur? I am guessing maybe five years. It will occur
sooner wherever the benefits of biochar become better known
(an example is what we have heard from Julian Winter in
Bangladesh).</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>But
for sure there are cooks already who know - as in the
Inyenyeri study with the Mimi Moto forced draft stove (see </b><a href="https://www.inyenyeri.com/development" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.inyenyeri.com/development</a> and <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html</a>),
<b class="">and some recent reports on stove acceptance by
Paul Anderson </b>(see <a href="http://www.drtlud.com/" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.drtlud.com/</a>)<b class="">. The Inyenyeri cooks only knew part of the
advantages of the stove - emphasizing cleanliness and time
savings, but not money earnings (because the needed initial
(not perpetual) subsidy or biochar advantage is not yet
available..</b></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">I am reminded of a classmate who
sought to prove the instability of capitalist system by
showing the third derivative of the aggregate production
function was of the wrong sign. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL3: I have no idea why this is in here. I
talked many decades ago with Dennis Meadows and another
author of "Limits to Growth". Believing the "Limits"
story, I believe your classmate was off in the order of
the derivative. Since I believe there is zero
possibility of continuing ever onwards to an infinitely
large GNP, without knowing anything about your classmate's
project - I might guess the right answer is the first or
second derivative, depending on what is being varied. The
point of this answer is of course to emphasize the
importance of char-making stoves to getting on to a
sustainable path.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>What
were you driving at with this story?</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Assuming you are correct, when
will the first 50 million clean biomass stoves be
exclusively used for two years and where? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL4: I consider only the char-making stoves
to be clean enough to worry about, so I answer only for
char-makers, and accept your further stipulations of 50
Million and 2 years. This of course depends on my answer
to your 2nd question on cooks understanding en masse the
benefits of making (not using) charcoal. The current
growth path for biochar is approximately doubling every
two years. With a subsidy near $35/tonne CO2 (already
seen in some times and places), then this will
approximately allow a 6 month payback if the char can be
sold for $200/ton of char (20 cents per kilo of char).</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
am not going to worry about your word "exclusively" -
but rather that the char-maker is the primary stove
- because it is the cheapest, cleanest, most time-saving
stove and I see no reason for a rural low-income user
(maybe 2 billion in that category) to use another. So my
guess is about 10 doublings (ten years) to grow from about
50 thousand users to 50 million. We might be at 50,000
such stoves already, but will be shortly. It took PV
about 50 years to reach cost parity (in the 1970's the
cost was $100/Watt); char-making stoves are already much
closer to cost parity. </b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>To
check a bit - your 50 million stove number, multiplied by
about 4 users per stoves and dividing by about
2 billion potential users is getting up to about 10%
acceptance. I don't expect to stop at 10% when the user
can make money (and save time, health bills, forests,
etc). </b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">Again, thanks for allowing me to make my sales
pitch for both char-making stoves and biochar - based here
on the importance of the equation (and WBT and tier
structure) I have assumed you are asking about.</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<b class="">Ron</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Nikhil<br class="">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="" clear="all">
<div class="">
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class=""><font class="" face="georgia,
serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">
Nikhil Desai</font></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small" class="">(US +1) 202
568 5831</span><font class="" face="georgia,
serif"><br class="">
<i class="">Skype:
nikhildesai888</i><br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:10
PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">List
and Crispin:
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>This
is a partial response, due to press of other
matters.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Please
see inserts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 27, 2018, at 10:07
PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span class="">Dear Ronal
and All</span><span class="" lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Just on comment:</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">>>“I hope this
standard is the last nail in the
WBT coffin.”</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442apple-tab-span">> <span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></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.<br class="">
<br class="">
</b></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">I think you may be
misunderstanding something about
how calculations are made in the
ISO test method. One of the most
important metrics for stove
performance is assessing the
amount of fuel fed into the stove
in order to accomplish a task such
as baking 1000 cookies or boiling
200 ears of corn.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The metric is “Fuel Fed”
(please see the list of
definitions).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>RWL1:
I suggest you misunderstand my
misunderstandings. Please explain what
equation you would give for this answer
for a stove that has intentionally made
char. I think you are suggesting here
in this answer (and below) that there is
nothing wrong with the present Chinese
approach to pay zero attention to
intentionally produced char. True?</b><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""> </span></div>
<span class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The mass of fuel fed was
carefully written to capture the
quantity of fuel needed to
accomplish some cooking task.
Whether the stove produces char or
not is a secondary point. IT is easy
to report the amount of char
produced, and there are metrics for
doing so. It is the amount of char
produced per kg or per dry kg of
fuel fed.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL2: You leave out that it is
not at all easy to provide the energy (not
the weight) of that char. Both are of
interest.</b><span class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Importantly, the cheating
that has been taking place using
the WBT is not brought to an end.
If I look for the amount of fuel
fed into the stove per replication
of some task, be it the standard
one or a relevant one, I will find
the amount of fuel needed to do
so. If there is a secondary
product such as condensate, char,
heat that can be used for a
secondary purpose such as space
heating, or electricity, these are
all recorded in an appropriate
manner.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL3: Is now and was in the WBT
4.2.3 and earlier versions. Cites on
cheating have not been produced to my
knowledge.</b><span class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The cheat that was with
us for so long, claiming as the
WBT1.x, 2.x, 3.x and 4.x that a
stove did not consume fuel because
it emerged from the cooking
session in the form of char, is
gone, thankfully. Please refer
again to the definitions.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL4: This is erroneous.
Please give the (exact)
language anywhere that suggests the "did
not consume" . Please don't ask others
to go find something they don't believe
exists.</b></div>
<span class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">That ‘char deducted’
formula that you refer to is an
energy calculation that relates to
the fraction of energy in the fuel
fed that was released
(theoretically) during cooking. It
no longer refers to the mass of
fuel fed, as it once did.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL5: This paragraph makes no
sense. There is no theoretical release in
the equation being used to give a number
to allow comparing char-making stoves with
those that don't. All the numbers going
into that computation are given and all
have been in theist WBTs I know about. In
the Chinese official test procedure, the
char is wished away.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""> </span>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">This is a major advance
in testing methods. Only the stove
testing groups used the erroneous
‘char-deducted’ formula. When
searching the literature for some
example elsewhere in industry, not
a single one could be found
because the claim was
fundamentally misrepresentative.
That has now been cleared up.<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL6: Again a paragraph that
makes no sense. Please give exact
language from anywhere on what you are
talking about. I think it is the
"denominator equation" - which still
exists in the latest ISO version - I
think adopted with essentially a
unanimous vote of many countries (not
individuals).</b></div>
<span class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The remaining mentions of
the WBT are for PR purposes only.
Not a single voice supporting the
use of a “WBT-like” test was
raised in the ISO process. In fact
it was put to a vote in exactly
that form, in those words:
“WBT-like”. No one wanted it. Now,
it is only for the organisations
who supported the WBT for so long
to be given enough space for them
to quietly drop it while
pretending that it was a valid
method all along. To do otherwise
would be to admit they were
cheating donors. We do not have to
extract that pound of flesh.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL7: This is a long way from
what others have told me occurred. So I
will break here to hear from others (who
I hope can also join in). </b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>It
would help this list to have your
explanation of how you know what to be
true.</b></div>
<span class="">
<div class=""><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""> </span></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The ISO Standard is not
anyone’s standard – it only has
meaning when a country adopts it,
or adapts it. Any country
contemplating adopting this
document as a national standard
will have to consider how it will
be implemented, and whether all of
it or some of it will apply. When
it comes to things like fuel
efficiency, which is important in
some regions, it is likely the
national standards body will apply
its collective mind to what
portions of this massive document
they will use. As anyone reading
it will quickly see, it is
unnecessarily complex, and
requires numerous pieces of
equipment that are very expensive
if one is to have a reasonable
level of confidence in the result.
Because a national standard
provides a warranty of
performance, it is pointless to
have as a test method something
that doesn’t provide it.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL8: I claim none of this
paragraph is true. I have skimmed it;
Crispin says he has not. A country that
chooses to ignore a work that has taken
such effort will lose a lot of credibility
in science circles. This took many years
to balance complexity with completeness.</b><span class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">People seeking lower
cost and more accurate
alternatives may consider
adapting Indian IS–13152,
China’s NB/T 43008 – 2012, or
the CSI test method which has
been used internationally in
some form since 2009.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL9: I repeat my claim that
Crispin has kindly repeated above: </b><b style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""><i class=""> "I can think of no reasonable
rationale for such a position." </i> </b><b class="">To report results on a stove
designed to make char without measuring
the char, because the national standard
says so, is unbelievable. That couldn't
happen if offending countries adopt
the new ISO procedure.</b><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The WBT 4.2.3 contained,
when it does, some 75 systematic
errors as well as its
much-discussed conceptual errors.
We do not know yet how many are
contained in the ISO-19867-1
because it has not been reviewed
conceptually or systematically.
Because the test method is novel,
(untested) problems with its
implementation will have to be
resolved at the national adoption
level, if it turns out to be
acceptable ahead of other options.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL8: I have asked for this
"75" list several times and do so again.
The ISO document that is being discussed <u class="">has</u> undergone agonizing
review - by top experts.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">The problems created by
the WBT remain, however, as
witnessed by the recent release of
the second edition of the
Micro-gasifier Handbook which
makes barley any mention of
testing and includes multiple
references to ‘performance’ based
on the obviously erroneous fuel
consumption claims of the WBT.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL9: How about a specific cite
and example quotes? I claim it quite
likely that there is zero error in
the consumption claims.</b></div>
<div class=""><span class=""><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt" class=""> </span>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">For anyone who is new to
this topic I recommend reading the
CREEC Lab test of the Quad II
stove (featured in that Handbook)
which shows that the fuel fed per
replication of the test is 1.3 kg
(as received) and claims a dry
wood fuel consumption of 636 g. I
will read it again, but I think
the handbook does not address this
issue squarely and it must in the
next edition. Char production is a
secondary benefit and can
negatively affect the fuel
consumption rate. Advocates should
not shy away from discussing it. A
good example of how to handle
secondary benefits is heating
stoves, which are assessed on the
basis of the cooking provided, the
heat provided, and the
combination. Where char is an
additional secondary benefit, it
should also be listed in the form
of carbon mass, if it is for
sequestering, energy, if it is for
fuel, or total surface per gram if
it is for “activated” uses.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL10: Crispin here totally
misses everything possible about
char-making stoves. More on this if he
wishes and gives cites so we don't waste
more time on something agreed upon in the
new ISO test procedures. </b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Measuring
char-making capabilities of a cook stove
that excels in emissions and other ways is
probably a real problem if one is into
coal-consuming heating stoves.</b></div>
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
<div class=""><b class="">Ron</b></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><span class="">
<div class="m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Regards</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Crispin</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">ISO TC-285 WG1, WG2,
WG3, WG4.</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">P-member SABS TC-1043<u class=""> </u></div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<!--'"--><br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>