<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 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=NL-BE link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dears,</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> To stop the endless disscution on WBT with CHARCOAL counted or not counted in Efficienty…..</p><p class=MsoNormal>There is an easy way to SEPARATE CHARCOAL from ASH !</p><p class=MsoNormal>Put it in WATER and the CHARCOAL FLOATS , scim it off, after draying at 110 degrees celcius and weighing ,you count it as NO WASTE .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> A pressure cooker is bad , it destruct essential proteines with SULFUR at 120 celcius .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards</p><p class=MsoNormal>F. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0cm'><b>Van: </b><a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a><br><b>Verzonden: </b>donderdag 26 juli 2018 22:54<br><b>Aan: </b><a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">'Ronal W. Larson'</a>; <a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">'Discussion of biomass'</a>; <a href="mailto:kgharris@sonic.net">'Kirk Harris'</a><br><b>Onderwerp: </b>Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Ron,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I don’t think the new ISO standard includes the WBT, I think you are the only person claiming that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Until there exists reviews of the WBT protocol demonstrating it is valid, the « cites for inadequacy that are very old » (some are from 2016 and 2017) will be the only proofs there is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>« </span><b><span lang=FR>[RWL3: Can you give cites on these three sentences? Maybe from some group that treats char as waste? »</span></b><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>See the table from <i>Riva and al., Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>improved and traditional three – Stone fire cookstoves</span></i><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> below, this is with the WBT:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><img border=0 width=467 height=301 style='width:4.8645in;height:3.1354in' id="Image_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D42533.69224380" alt="cid:image001.png@01D42533.69224380"></span><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Some of the stoves tested were « Micro-Gasifier Stoves with FAN »<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR>« [RWL4: I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or char-making. »</span></i></b><b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>See above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span lang=FR>« They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is un-needed and wasteful of time and money. »<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Only with the WBT I believe. I don’t think the CSI protocol needs more test sessions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Everyone,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Is there a way we could get our hands on the documents of the new ISO standard, and share it with everyone on the List?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Could we crowdpay it for example, and leave it on a website or a server for everyone to see?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think it is really a shame that the document is behind a paywall.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>Xavier<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR>De :</span></b><span lang=FR> Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net> <br><b>Envoyé :</b> jeudi 26 juillet 2018 21:33<br><b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao@gmail.com>; Kirk Harris <kgharris@sonic.net><br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] TLUD stoves and tests<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>List, Xavier and Kirk<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR> </span></span><span lang=FR>The main item not being discussed below is the recently approved (with a huge majority by a lot of stove experts - after years of debate) new ISO test procedures. To me this proves conclusively that the WBT is fine. Giving cites for inadequacy that are very old is no proof of anything.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>On Jul 26, 2018, at 12:51 PM, <<a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com">xav.brandao@gmail.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com">xav.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Dear Kirk,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>“A well designed TLUD type stove will do well, whatever test it is given.”</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR> </span></span><b><span lang=FR>RWL1: Kirk - I have to disagree. There are tests (especially one used in China) that treat char as waste - and so don't measure the produced char. I guarantee that TLUDs will look bad on those tests.</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Will it for sure? I have not tested nor seen tests of TLUD stoves myself, nor read that much about TLUD testing.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR> </span></span><b><span lang=FR>[RWL2: I gave a cite yesterday to a paper by Jetter et al, that is on testing. Clearly the best performing stoves there were TLUDs and fan-powered (also TLUD principles). To repeat - see</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=FR><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648.7709&rep=rep1&type=pdf">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648.7709&rep=rep1&type=pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>“A lesser performing type stove will accordingly do less well, whatever test it is given.”</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>No.</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>It might perform great sometimes with the WBT. Then terrible. Then great. Then quite ok.</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Then it might perform great or terrible in the field.</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>There is too much variability and unreliability.</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR>[RWL3: Can you give cites on these three sentences? Maybe from some group that treats char as waste?</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Have you read Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi papers?</span><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=FR> </span></span><b><span lang=FR>[RWL4: I have - and I recall no statements about TLUDs or char-making. They want to do more testing to get an accuracy that is un-needed and wasteful of time and money.</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><b><span lang=FR> </span></b></span><b><span lang=FR>I'll stop here - to give time on the above.</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR>Ron</span></b><span lang=FR><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>