<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">List: cc Crispin and Kevin<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I respond here because Crispin has attributed to me a WBT position I have never held. I also intend in two later messages: </div><div class=""><br class=""><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>a. to talk about the test results that SNV has reported for Kevin re rocks and grates. (Which Crispin has misunderstood repeatedly below)</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>b. to talk about the way that charcoal should be handled in any WBT (which Crispin has said (below and often) are wrong)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>See inserts below.<br class=""><div>:</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 22, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" class="">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; 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; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="">Dear Friends<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="">This testing by the SNV lab has been done using their Simplified Water Boiling Test (SWBT). It is not the same as the ISO test in terms of calculations, and it is also not the same as the WBT in certain respects, being closer to the latter than the former.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="">The important difference is that you will note in the report that was attached to Kevin’s message the use of the term “Wood fuel equivalent consumed”. This is the bugbear of that WBT – it does not report the wood consumed to operate the stove, it reports the dry wood fuel equivalent of the energy presumed to have been released from missing fuel mass, with a crude compensation made for the charcoal remaining in the ashes under the fire. The more char created, the bigger the deduction.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL1: Crispin is introducing charcoal for an unknown reason; SNV reports nothing on char. Probably a small amount of char was produced - and I guess it was probably handled correctly. In any case, any char amount was probably the same for all (5) tests </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The word “equivalent" was used in comparing to a test using gas - and I found that helpful. </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Repeat - I hope all will read the report. You won’t understand my remarks below without reading the SNV report - here: </b></div></div></div></div></body></html>