<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria-Italic;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I used this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org/stoves/268">http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org/stoves/268</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="378" height="71" style="width:3.9375in;height:.7395in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D5F6E9.FC7D7170"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It looks right. Maybe someone copied it incorrectly to another place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I just went through the metrics reported there and there are several very strange things. Some of the numbers don’t balance with each other, and it is using the IWA which has no valid low power
metrics. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">One very strange thing is that the CO2 emission rate drops 24%
<i>per kg</i> when changing from high to low power. This can only happen if the CO goes through the roof, or if it is not burning the fuel. The CO drops 18% so that can’t be where the carbon is going.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Because the char energy (~2.1 MJ) is subtracted from the fuel before assessing the fuel consumption, we have no idea what the thermal efficiency is. Using the other numbers given and some guesses,
it might be 37% at high power. Tier 3. The value listed is Tier 4 but the rating shown is Tier 3 - no explanation.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Note to those new to this, any metric with “per litre” at the end is not a valid unit.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="378" height="113" style="width:3.9375in;height:1.177in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image005.jpg@01D5F6E9.FC7D7170"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">What is happening is the (valid) PM or CO number is divided by however many litres remain in the pot, in other words, by a random number. It has been recognized since at least 1982 (<i>Feu de Bois</i>)
that there is no valid metric for the thermal “efficiency of simmering”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Most of this was addressed during the ISO exercise, however at the last minute the WBT and CCT-2.0 appear in the Scope of the Voluntary Performance Standard document ISO 19867-3, as if they are validated
test methods. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">“</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The best way to assess real-world impacts of a stove intervention
or program is through field studies – see ISO CD 19869, </span><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria-Italic",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions
</span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">–
</span><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria-Italic",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Guidance on field testing methods for cookstoves
</span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">[2], as well as other methods such as the Controlled Cooking Test, the Kitchen Performance Test, or the Uncontrolled Cooking Test [6]."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Never assume anything. No working group reviewed or accepted the validity of these legacy test methods. The CCT is mentioned 5 times in the ISO 19869 Field Test document. The KPT is mentioned and
references a new version <a href="https://www.cleancookingalliance.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/604-1.pdf">
KPT-4.0</a> which was also not reviewed. Because it is incomplete as a method, it references the old KPT-2.0. The new version still references the old WBT and CCT as if they are validated protocols. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The zombie tests continue to rise from the dark of night.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Stoves <stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>ajheggie@gmail.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 10, 2020 13:45<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Stove identification please<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 16:07, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks you for that, It confirms my bias:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">ACE-1 from African Clean Energy in Maseru.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">looking at the website given by woodstoves56 under the performance tab it gives<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">PM emissions (g/MJ delivered to pot) <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">101.1<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Surely they mean milligrams per MJ?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>