review (part 2a)
TRANSCRIPT
1
REVIEW(PART2a)of
ASSESSMENTOFEPA’sRESIDENTIALWOODHEATERCERTIFICATIONPROGRAMTestReportReview:Stoves&CentralHeaters
WrittenbyNESCAUM,March2021and
ALT-140TestMethod
Reviewedby:ThomasMorrissey
WoodstockSoapstoneCompany,Inc.66AirparkRoad
WestLebanon,NH03784June15,2021
2
REVIEW(PART2a)of“ASSESSMENTOFEPA’sRESIDENTIALWOODHEATERCERTIFICATIONPROGRAM”
andIDCTM(nowALT-140TestMethod)
Part 1 of this review concluded with 3 short paragraphs about
NESCAUM/ADEC’s criticism of the ASTM E-3053 method, because the medium burn
rate in ASTM E-3053 was not at least 0.30 kg/hr higher than the low burn rate.
There is no regulatory basis for the medium burn rate to be at least 0.30 kg/hr
above the low burn rate. Nevertheless, the “Assessment” identifies “Medium burn rates
within 0.3 kg/hr of low burn rates” as one of 7 serious deficiencies of ASTM E-3053.1
Since this is featured prominently in the NESCAUM/ADEC list of flaws with ASTM
E-3053, it deserves a more thorough review than just three paragraphs.
The “Assessment” states:
“Analysis of the 69 ASTM E-3053 tests found that almost two thirds
(46) of the medium air setting’s burn rates were within 0.30 kg/hr of the burn
rate for the low burn. For example, the range of allowable burn rates in
Method 28R for Category 2 is 0.80 to 1.24 kg/hr.” (“Assessment,” page 39-40).
It is interesting that the “Assessment” compares this “deficient” characteristic of
ASTM E-3053 to M28R, rather than its own IDCTM. We shall see why they chose to
make this comparison on the following pages.
After eliminating duplicate ADEC Test Summary sheets and sheets with very
little data, I come up with 42 (not 46) stoves getting “Flagged” for violating this
arbitrary requirement. Eight of the 42 cases cited by NESCAUM/ADEC, were the
result of arithmetic errors by NESCAUM/ADEC, where the value NESCAUM/ADEC
got after subtracting the low burn from the medium burn was in error – i.e., in each case
1The7deficienciesare1)“debarking”and2)“squaring”ofcordwoodfuelwhichwerediscussedatlengthinPart1ofthisseries.3)istheseparationofmediumandlowburnsbymorethan0.30kg/hr,whichisdiscussedatlengthhere.Thefinal4deficienciesrelatetofireboxcalculationsandfuelloadingprotocols,whichwillbediscussedinalaterreview.
3
the medium burn was at higher than the low burn by 0.30 kg/hour or more. These 8
cases are highlighted below.
Theyellowcolumnunder“<0.30”indicatesthatthesestoveswere
identifiedand“flagged”for“non-representative”runsbecausethemediumburn
rateswerenotatleast0.30kg/hrabovethelowrates.Themediumburnratesare
listedinthecolumnunder“M,”andtheburnratebywhichmediumisabovelowis
intherighthandcolumn(“MlessL”).
Clearly,noneofthesestovesfailedthe0.30kg/hrseparation.Inafew
othercases,ASTME-3053testreportswere“flagged”forhavingmediumburn
ratesthatwerelowerthanhighburnrates.Inmanycasesthereviewersopenly
questionedwhythedampersettingusedtoachievethemediumburnrateswasn’t
alteredtoachieveahighermediumburn.Belowandtotherightisa
representativesampleofthistypeofcomment:
4
Thepointofreportingonthearithmeticerrorsandthesnarkymargin
commentsisnotthattheyareabigdealinandofthemselves.Theyarepresented
heretoprovidecontext.
Thecontextisthatthe“Assessment”presents7disqualifying
characteristicsofASTME-3053.Arithmeticerrorsareevidenceofpoordata
controlandinaccuratereporting.Ifthemediumburnratereallyshouldbeatleast
0.30kg/hrabovelowburnrate,thenNESCAUM’sIDCTMitselfisacompletefailure
asareplacement.TheIDCTMresultsreportedinthe“21-02InterimReport
DevelopmentofIntegratedDutyCycleTestMethodCordwoodStove”(“Interim
Report”)areuniformlymuchworsethantheASTME-3053teststhatNESCAUM
criticizesinthe“Assessment”.TheyarealsoworsethantheASTME-3053tests
performedbyNESCAUMitself,andreportedinthe“InterimReport”
TheIDCTMCompletelyFailstoCreateMediumandLowBurnRatesthatAre“Representative,”UnderNESCAUM’sOwn
Definitionof“Representative”
IhaverevieweddatafromtheNESCAUM’s“InterimReport”toseeifthe
IDCTMmethodproducedtestresultswherethemediumburnwasconsistentlyat
least0.30kg/hrabovethelowburnrate.Inthe“InterimReport”NESCAUM
presentssummarydata(norawdata)fromteststhatitperformedusingtheFinal
“IDCTM”protocol.Ofthefollowing24testresultsfrom7stoves,18hadlowburns
thatwerehigherthanmedium,andjust5hadresultswherethelowburnwas
actuallylowerthanthemediumburn(seechart,following).Only1of24testruns
(run#11)hadresultsthatfellwithinthedefinitionof“representative”separation
betweenlowandmediumburnrates(i.e.,mediumburnatleast0.30kg/hrmore
thanthelowburnrate)thatNESCAUM/ADECclaimedwasnecessarytobea
“representative”mediumburnrate.
5
Inalmosteverystudyofin-homewoodstoveuse(likethewellknown
KlamathFallsOR,andPortlandORstudiesin1998-99,whichloggedover5,000
actualhoursofburntime),theaverageburnratewasabout1kg/hr.Atug-of-war
hasbeengoingonfordecadesbetweenmanufacturersandregulatorsabout
wheretoplacelow-burntestingrequirements(withregulatorsalmostalways
wantinglowerburnrates,andmanufacturersalmostalwayswantingtoeasethe
lowburnraterequirement).Noonehaseversuggestedthatalowburnshouldbe
higherthanamediumburn...untilNESCAUMandtheIDCTM.
6
IfNESCAUM/ADECconsidertheASTME-3053separationbetweenmedium
andlowburnratestobesuchabigproblem,whyistheseparationbetween
mediumandlowburnratesusingtheIDCTMMethodsomuchworsethanASTME-
3053?
Putanotherway,whyistheNESCAUM/ADECIDCTMtestmethodunableto
achieveanaveragelowburnratebelowabout1.5kg/hr?Andfurther,whyisit
unabletoachievealowburnratelowerthanitsmediumburnrateon18of24
(75%)ofitsreportedruns?
NESCAUMalsoranASTME-3053testson3stovesdescribedinthe
“InterimReport.”EmissionsfortheASTME-3053testsweremeasuredwitha
TEOM.ThemostsignificantdifferencebetweentheASTME-3053andIDCTMruns
wasthefuelloadingprotocol–i.e.,sizeandtimingofeachload.
TheASTME-3053resultsarecomparativelymuchbetterthantheIDCTM
resultsapplyingNESCAUM’sowncriteria.TheaverageandmedianASTME-3053
lowburnsarelowerthantheASTME-3053mediumburns,astheyshouldbe,and
theASTME-3053lowburnslookmorelike,well,lowburns.
7
The“InterimReport”states:“researcherscomparedstovedata...that
suggest2thatASTME-3053proceduresresultinanartificiallyhightemperatureat
thebeginningofthat(low)testphase.”(pg.322)Itcontinuesbyclaimingthat
IDCTMresultsina“loweraveragetemperaturebeforethebeginning(of)thefinal
phase(RL3),thephasewhichsimulateslong,low-burnperiods.”(“Interim
Report,”pg.322).It’stoobadthisclaimisfalse.TheIDCTMlowburnsarehigh
becausecoalbedsaredeeper,andstovetemperatureshigherthanintheASTME-
3053tests.
Onthelimitednumberofstoves(Stove1,6,and7)whereNESCAUMran
bothIDCTMandASTMtests,theASTMtestswereslightlylonger,(byvirtueof
havinglowermediumandlowburnrates).Ontwoofthestovestested,emissions
perkilogram3offuelwerealmostidentical(stoves1and7).Onstove6,the
emissionsusingan“ASTMprotocol”administeredbyNESCAUMwere
approximatelyonethirdofemissionsusingIDCTM(onagm/kgbasis),even
thoughtheIDCTMisallegedtobeamorerigorousmethod.4
The“90%TEOMWorkaround”PartoftheproblemwiththeIDCTMiswhatIcallthe“90%TEOM
Workaround”.The“90%TEOMWorkaround”wasadecisiontostopevery
segmentofeverytestwhen90%ofthefuelwasburned.AlthoughNESCAUM
makesvariousargumentsforstoppingat90%ofeachload(lesstesttime,
theoreticallylessexpense,theoreticallyamorereal-lifeloadingpattern,andso
2Theword“suggest”isdoingalotofworkinthissentence.IamsurethatifNESCAUMhaddatatoprovethispoint,theywouldprovideit.Thefactofthematteristhatthisclaimisfalse,misleading,andnotsupportedbytheevidence.Infact,theevidenceisexactlytheopposite,whichiswhytheASTMlowburnsaresomuchmorerepresentativethantheIDCTMlowburns.3Iamcomparingstoveemissionsinthiscasebyemissionsperunitoffuel(g/kg),sowedon’thavetoargueabouttheproblemswithmeasuringemissionsovertime.4TheIDCTMisNOTamorerigorousmethod;rather,itisanextendedmediumburntest.Itwillbemuchmorecostly,however,becausethetestswilltakeaminimumofthreedaysinsteadoftwo,andthereforelikelytocost50%moreinlabtime.Itisalsolikelytoproducesignificantlydifferent(lower)calculationsofefficiencywhichcannotbereconciledwithcurrentmethods.
8
on),IsubmitthattherealreasonisthattheTEOMtendstoshedcollectedPM
towardtheendofthetestwhichactuallyreducestheparticulatecatchifthetestis
continuedthroughalongcoal-bedphase.5Onpage95ofthe“InterimReport”
NESCAUMcommentsonlowandmediumrunsusingASTME-3053asfollows:
“Inalllowandmediumfireruns,mostofthePMwasemittedearlyintherun
andPMwasvolatizedfromthefilterslaterintherun,asisthecaseinthe
M28runs.Inthethreelow-firephaseruns,thePMmeasurementsatthe
endofthephasewas9%-19%lowerthanatthemaximum.Forthefour
ofthefivemediumphaseruns,13%-21%ofthemaximumPMwaslost.In
oneofthemediumphaserunsthatburnedredmaple,S6019-01-31,only1%
oftotalPMwaslost,althoughthemaximumoccurredafter25%oftherun.
(“InterimReport”,page95,emphasisadded)
NotetheTEOMsheddingPMfromMinute108totheterminationofthetest.
5Iftheirreasoningisclosetocorrect,theycouldjuststopemissionssamplingwhen50%oftheloadisconsumed,orafter3hours,whichevercomesfirst.ButtheIDCTMhasbeenconcoctedinsecret,sowedon’tknowwhatotheralternativeswereevenconsidered.
9
Thecaptionatthebottomofthegraphonthepreviouspagestates“Real-
timePMMeasurementswithTeom.OnaverageTeommeasurementsare10%less
thanfiltermeasurements.”(Graph(previouspageisfrompage12,“Interim
Report”).Wedon’tactuallyknowhowemissionsarecalculatedusingIDCTM,
becauseNYSERDAownstheIDCTMMethod,andtheyrefusetoprovideanydata,
orthebasisforanyoftheircalculations.AreNESCAUMIDCTMemissions
measurementsbasedonactualcollectedPM,oristheresomeaveraging?
Thechartbelowprovidessummarydataforthegraphonthepreviouspage
(TestS1-17-10-03),andtherungraphedisthelowburndescribedinthe
summarydatabelow.6Thisisa“ModifiedM28TestRun”fromNESCAUM.
Notethat100%burnrate(low)is111minuteslongerthanNESCAUM’s
90%terminationpoint.“TotalPM(g)”islowerat100%ofBurnthanat90%of
Burnineveryrun,nomatterhowshort(eveninthehighburn).NESCAUMhas
chosentoterminateallrunswhen90%ofeachloadhasbeenconsumedasa
“workaround”forweaknessesintheTEOM.Wedon’tknowifNESCAUMalso
compensatesfortheTEOMmeasurementsintheirfinalPMcalculations(basedon
theirassessmentthat“Teommeasurementsare10%lessthanfilter
measurements”)becauseNYERDArefusestopubliclydiscloseanyoftheirraw
dataorcalculations–eventoEPA!6TheefficiencynumbersintherighthandcolumnofthissummarydatachartsetoffalarmbellsandfirstpiquedmyinterestinNESCAUM’sefficiencycalculations–describedonpp.10-14,following.
10
4Loads+Only2DamperSettings(FullyOpen/FullyClosed)+
“90%TEOMWorkaround”=HugeCoal-beds
TheIDCTMrequires4fuelloadingsforeachrun(kindling,highburn,
mediumburn,andlowburn).Thesesuccessiveburnsareallconductedatjusttwo
differentdampersettings:allthewayopen(kindlingandhighburn)andallthe
wayclosed(for“medium”and“low”).Eachloadisplacedonacoal-bedthatis
progressivelylargerthantheoneprecedingit.Overthecompleterun,the
cumulativecoal-bedbecomesdeeperanddeeper,andthemediumandlowburns
becomejustasteadystatemediumburnonanever-largercoal-bed.TheIDCTM
couldbeaptlyrenamedthe“STEADYSTATEMEDIUMBURNTESTMETHOD”.
TheInterimReportattemptstodismissthe“90%TEOMWorkaround”and
theattendantproblemofmassivecoal-bedsbypresentingitasaFNAB(“feature,
notabug”):
“Existingmethodsdonotrequireassessinghowtheapplianceperforms
withdifferentcoal-bedconditions.TheIDCassessesthreedifferentcoal-
bedconditions.Theloadsareburnedto90%,withcoal-bedconditionsat
approximately10%,15%,and20%oftotalfireboxvolume.”(Interim
Report,page323,emphasisadded.)
ANew,andNotVeryInformative,EfficiencyCalculationTheIDCTMdoesnotmakeanyattemptto1.)calculatetheamountofenergy
inthesemassivecoal-beds,or2.)calculatehowmuchoftheenergyinthefinal
remaindercoal-bedistransferredfromthestovetotheareaitheats.Thisiswhythe
IDCTMefficiencymeasurementsaresignificantlylowerthansimilarcalculations
usedforM28RandASTME-3053.TheformulausedinM28RandASTMmethods
calculatestheamountofenergyinafuelload,andthenultimatelycalculateshow
muchofthatenergyistransferredtotheroom,includingenergyinthecoal-bed.
11
Thus,M28RandASTME-3053aredesignedtomeasurecombustionefficiencyand
heattransferefficiencyforburningadefinedloadofwood(inbothcases,thefull
chargeofwood).
The“90%TEOMWorkaround”forcesNESCAUMtocomeupwithanother
methodofmeasuringefficiency,becausethefullloadisnotburned.Thestartand
endpointsaredifferentforeachload.Tocompensate,theIDCTMmeasures
“instantaneousefficiency”.
TheIDCTMmeasuresinstantaneousefficiencyperatomofcarboninthe
exhaust,andthenitreachesanoverallefficiencybyaveragingallofthoseindividual
calculations.7WhatisinadequateabouttheIDCTMisthatthetestprotocolproduces
ahugecoal-bedattheterminationofthetest–muchbiggerthanM28orASTME-
3053–andthentheIDCTMsimplyignoresthishugecoal-bedforthepurposeof
calculatingefficiency.IDCTMjustpretendsthattheenergyinitshuge-coalbeds
aren’trelevant(atbest)ordon’texist(atworst).
WhyWouldAManufacturerAgreeToPayToUseATestMethodThat:A)CalculatesSignificantlyLowerEfficiencyForEachStoveTestedbyArbitrarilyChangingtheEndpointofthe
Test,andB)ArbitrarilyDecidesNOTTOMEASURETheEnergyInHUGETerminalCoal-Beds,orTheHeatTransfer
FromThoseHUGECoal-Beds?
7WithrespecttocalculatingefficiencytheIDCTMisa“secretmethod,”atleastsofar.Thetriumvirate(NESCAUM/ADEC/NYSEDA)hasrefusedtoprovideanyrawdata,orexplainhowitaveragesefficiencycalculations,excepttoprovidethebasicequationforcalculatingefficiencyattheendofthetestreport.It’shardto“back-into”theircalculationswithoutgoodrawdata.Moretothepoint,peopleemployedbystateandfederalagenciesarepublicservants,sotheextremesecrecyofNESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAseemslikeanoddstance;asiftheyhadsomethingtohide(likethefactthatthatthereportedefficiencyforeverystovetestedwiththeirmethodwillgodown,comparedwiththewaystoveefficiencyisunderstoodandcalculatedtoday).IwassurprisedthatnotevenEPAhasback-updataorcompletesamplecalculationsforhowefficiencyismeasuredintheIDCTM.TheonlythingthatEPAhas,asfarasIknow,isonelockedspreadsheetindicatingthatasuccessfulemissionstestwasperformedontwostoves–butevenEPAhasnoinformationonhowanythingwasactuallycalculated.Transparency,anyone?
12
Currently,thereisa26%federaltaxcreditforwoodstovesthatareover
75%HHVefficient.Ibelievethatmoststovesthatmeetthis75%efficiency
requirementstodaywouldnotqualifyforthetaxcreditiftheirefficiencieswere
calculatedusingtheIDCTM-notbecausethestovesareinefficient,butbecause
theIDCTMprotocolproducesVERYLARGECOAL-BEDSthatarecompletely
ignoredinitsefficiencycalculations.
Somestovedesignersdeliberatelydesignstovesthathaveextremelylong
tails–nottogamethetestmethod(s),butbecausealongtailisaverydesirable
andhighlysoughtafterconsumerbenefit.Wedesignmechanismstokeep
reducingtheairflowandmaintainthecoal-bedtoextendthetimerequired
betweenre-loadings.Theextendedburntime,andtheheattransferredduring
thatextendedtimeareimportantbenefitstoconsumers.
Twoofthemostfrequentlyaskedquestionsbyconsumersare:“Howlong
willtheyourstoveburn?”(meaning:howlongwillitholdcoalsuntilIhaveto
reloadit?)”and“HowmuchlesswoodwillIhavetoburnwithyourstove?”
(meaning:willtheefficiencyofthestovereducemywoodconsumption?).The
IDCTMcannotanswereitherofthesequestions.Infact,theIDCTMwillonly
introduceconfusiononbothissues.
TheIDCTMrepeatedloadings,combinedwithanever-increasingcoal-bed,
producealmoststeadystatetemperaturesandpreventthestovesfrombeing
testedatlowburnrates,oratreloadsonsmallcoal-beds.Theexamplebelow
showsasamplefuelingsequenceforStove#7,astovewitha1.9cuft.firebox.The
cumulativeloadingstotal42.34poundsofcordwoodandresultina5.9pound
coal-bedattheterminationofthetest,after665minutes(11.08hours).
ThechartbelowshowstheloadingsequenceforStove#7,thetime
requiredtoburneachloadandthesizeoftheendingcoal-bed.Thefinal5.9pound
coal-bedisaBIGcoal-bedforthissizestove.
13
Start ET End ET Ld, wet lb
MC, dry %
Start Coals, lb
End Coals, lb
0 46 7.59 17.5 0.0 2.0
46 199 13.33 19.0 2.0 3.3
199 339 9.32 19.9 3.3 3.9
339 661 19.69 21.2 3.9 5.9
0 661 42.34 20.2 0.0 5.9
Ofequalimportanceisthattheconstantlybuildingcoal-bedandthe
frequentloadingtendstoproducealmoststeady-statestovetemperatures.Far
fromsubjectingthestovetoastresstestatmultipledifferentburnconditions,the
IDCTMisbasicallyjustanextendedmediumburn,maintainedbyfrequent
loadingsandanever-increasingcoal-bed.
ThegraphbelowisderivedfromtheonlysetofdatathatIhaveforanIDCTMtest.ThisdatawasprovidedbyEPA,butneithertheynorIhaveaccesstoefficiencycalculationsoranyother“back-end”calculations(forthisoranyotherrun).Thosecalculationsareabigsecret.Butthegraphbelow,usingavailabledata,doesshowthecoalbedbuild-up,thesteadystatetemperaturesduringtherun,andtheportionofheatoutputandheattransferproducedbythisrunbutignoredbyIDCTM;hencetheunnaturallylowefficiencynumbersreportedbyIDCTMtests.
14
Asthesizeofthefireboxincreases,sodoesthesizeoftheload(s),andthe
cumulativesizeofthecoal-bed.Stove17hasa2.8cu.ft.firebox(medium),sothe
sizeofthecoal-bedincreasesoverthetimeoftheNESCAUMtest(1145minutes,
or19.08hours)from2.8poundsafterthe11.14poundsofkindlingandstart-up
fuelareburned,to9.5poundsattheendofthetest.A9.5poundcoal-bedina
stovewitha2.8cu.ft.fireboxisMASSIVE.
AlloftheIDCTMteststhatIreviewedhavewhatIwouldconsidertobe
abnormallylowefficiencynumbersandabnormallylargecoal-beds.TheIDCTM
deliberatelyignoresthesignificantportionoftheburntime,heatoutput,andheat
transferthatoccursaftertheirtestendpoint.Iwouldarguethatallofthese
metrics(totalburntime,totalheatoutput,andefficiencyincludingenergyin
terminalcoalbeds)shouldbemeasuredineverytestrunregardlessofthe
“method.”Theseareimportantmetricsofsignificantinteresttoconsumers.
Understatingthelengthofburncycles,ignoringasignificantportionofheat
output,andchoosingtocalculatediminishedheattransferefficienciesiserror,in
myopinion.WhyanyonewouldchoosetotestwiththeIDCTM,whenother
alternativesareavailablethataccuratelyreportthesemetrics,isamysterytome.
IquestionwhetheranystovetestedwiththeIDCTMwouldachievethe
75%HHVefficiencyrequiredtoqualifyforthe26%FederalTaxCredit,basedon
NESCAUM’sreportedefficienciesforstovestheyhavetested,andNESCAUM’s
unwillingnesstoproducesamplerawdataandefficiencycalculationsforstoves
theyhavetested.
ExtremesecrecyonthepartofNESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAjustfuels
suspicionsthattheyarehidinginadequateorcontrivedcalculations.
ReturningbrieflytotheissueofburnratesandwhatNESCAUMthinksis
“representative,’weshouldtakeabrieflookathowNESCAUM/ADECinterpretthe
requirementfor50hoursof“conditioning”beforetesting.
15
The“Assessment”notonlycriticizesmediumburnratesinASTME-
3053tests,buttheyalso“flag”theburnratesthatareusedto“condition”stoves
for50hourspriortotesting.Herearesomesamplecommentstakenfromthe
ADECSummarySheetsontherequirementfor50hoursofconditioning,:
PeoplewhowerereviewingtestdataforADECclearlythought(orwere
instructedtothink)thatthe“50hoursofconditioning”hadtobeconductedat+/-
0.50kg/hrofthemediumburnrateasitwasexpressedonthetestreport,inkg/hr.
Thisiserror,becausetheASTME-3053TestMethodrequiresnosuchthingfor
“conditioning.”
WhatASTME-3053requiresisthattheconditioningshouldbeconducted
“foratleast50hoursatamediumcombustionairsetting.”Thereisabig
differencebetweena“burnrate”andan“airsetting,”andthereisnorequirement
fortheconditioningpriortoanASTME-3053testtobeconductedataparticular
“burnrate.”
Whenitcomestotheirownmethod(IDCTMnowALT-140),
NESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAdoseemtounderstandthedistinctionbetween“air
setting”and“burnrate.”TheIDCTMalsodoesnotrequirethatconditioningbe
conductedataspecificburnrate,butitsimplystatesthattheappliance“shallbe
operatedatavarietyofburnrates”andthemanufacturershallreport“airsettings
16
used,timespentineachairsettingphase,theamountoffuelburned,and
applianceburnrates.”Implicitinbothmethodsisthattheappliancecanbe
burnedeitherata“mediumsetting”(ASTME-3053)orcanbeburnedatdifferent
“airsettings”(IDCTM).8Ineithercase,iftheapplianceisleftunattended,theburn
ratewillgraduallydrop,asfuelisconsumed,butthatisfineforconditioning
purposes.
ThecommentsmadebyADECreviewersabouttheburnratesduringthe50
hourconditioningperiodaremisplacedandyetanotherexampleoferrorinthe
“Assessment.”Inthecaseofthe“50hourconditioningrequirement”theADEC
reviewersobviouslydidn’treadtheASTME-3053testmethodbeforetryingto
determineifitwascorrectlyapplied
____________________________________________________________________________
ObviouslytherewillalsobeaPart2b,andaPart3ofthisReview,because
thereissomuchmoretounpackinboththe“Assessment”andtheIDCTM(now
ALT-140).
Here’safinalthoughtontheIDCTMefficiencycalculation,whichIfind
especiallygalling:Imaginethatsomebaseballregulatorscameupwithawayto
determinewhetherahomerunwashitbycomputingthespeedthattheballleft
thebat,thelaunchangle,theexacttrajectoryandthelikelyarc.Theywouldclaim
thatthiswouldvoidtheneedforreplays,preventoutfieldersfromrunninginto
walls,providemoreaccuratehittingmetrics,smoothoutthephysicaldifferences8AlsoincludedintheIDCTMsectionon“Conditioning”arerequirementsforappliancesusingcatalyticcombustors.Thissectiononcatalyticcombustorconditioningrequiresthereportingofrequirementslistedin8.1.1,butthereisno8.1.1inthetestmethod.ThisisjustoneofasignificantnumberofdraftingerrorsintheIDCTM.Herearejustacouplemoresamplesoutofmany:Section10.1.2.3statesthathighertunnelflowsmayberequiredtomeettheparametersof8.6.3.Butthereisno8.6.3CSAB415.1-2010isnotcitedasareferencemethod,butitisreferencedintheIDCTM,in“9.10.FlueGasAnalyzers”(inanincompletesentence!)andin“Section11.4.2.”AuthorsoftheIDCTMshouldgivethefolksatCSAsomecredit,bylistingCSAB415asareferencemethodinsection2.
17
betweenballparks(bye,bye“FenwayMonster”inleftfield),andgenerallymake
thegamemorescientificallyaccurateand“fair.”(Eyesroll.)
Thereisvalueincontinuityofmethodsandmetricswaybeyondjust
stubbornnessandresistancetochange.TheIDCTMproposestochangetheway
efficiencyismeasured,bycalculatingandaveragingmeasurementsof
instantaneousefficiency,andthendeliberatelyhidingthesecalculationsfrom
publicscrutiny.EvenEPAdoesnotknowhowIDCTMcalculatesandaverages
efficiency:whenasked,theiransweris“askNYSERDA”.
TheIDCTMmethodofcalculatingefficiencyisincompatiblewiththe
currentmethodofcalculatingefficiency(whichisgenerallyacceptedand
understoodbyregulators,stovemanufacturers,professionalengineers,andthe
generalpublic).
WhenFederalAgencies(here,EPA)beginapprovingTestMethodswhere
theydonotknoworunderstandhowtheback-endcalculationswork,andthe
back-endcalculationsarefarremovedfromdecadesoftribalknowledge,weare
muchclosertothebaseballanalogythanonemightthink.