[Stoves] jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it probably

Otto Formo formo-o at online.no
Fri Jan 21 04:06:51 CST 2011


Thanks for the information on Jatropha oil.
Tests has been made in Norway to detect any toxic emmission from the seed cake when burned into cookingstoves.
Since there is some content of N (nitrogen) in the seed cake we are afraied it might give some NOX from the emmision, when used as fuel, tests will tell.
I will give you feedbacks as soon we have the report "in house".
To use plantoil as a cooking fuel, I find as a waste of food, sorry.
Otto

> From: Shiroff Samuel Neal (CR) [Samuel.Shiroff at BSHG.COM]
> Sent: 2011-01-21 10:52:43 MET
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Stoves] jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it probably
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As many of you know BSH has developed a universal plant oil cookstove. Jatropha oil burns beautifully in it.
> 
> Naturally if the focus remains on using the lowest added-value fuel, pressed and filtered plant oil is not the first choice.  Nevertheless if you are working on a project and have Jatropha available in significant quantities, I would be very happy to speak with you.
> 
> Regards,
> Sam
> 
> ********************************************
> Samuel N. Shiroff
> BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH
> Carl-Wery-Strasse 34
> 81739 Munich
> Germany
> T: +49 89 4590-3039
> F: +49 89 4590-3249
> E: samuel.shiroff at bshg.com
> www.bsh-group.com / www.plantoilcooker.org
> 
> Protos. The Plant Oil Cooker.
> An Initiative of Bosch and Siemens Home Appliances Group.
> 
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Joe Kaeser
> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Kurt-Ludwig Gutberlet (Vors.), Johannes Närger, Jean Dufour, Winfried Seitz
> Sitz: München; Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRB 75534;
> WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 57986696
> 
> Diese Mitteilung ist ausschließlich für den beabsichtigten Empfänger bestimmt. Sie kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Jede(r) unberechtigte Gebrauch, Kopie, Weitergabe oder Veröffentlichung ist untersagt. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, benachrichtigen Sie uns bitte sofort durch Antwortmail und löschen Sie diese E-Mail nebst etwaigen Anlagen und einschließlich aller angefertigten Kopien von Ihrem System.
> 
> This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain trade secrets or other confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, copy, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message including any attachment or copies thereof from your system.
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] Im Auftrag von stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 10:39
> An: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Betreff: Stoves Digest, Vol 5, Issue 21
> 
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
>         stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: (no subject) (Boston Nyer)
>    2. Re: (no subject) (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    3. Re: jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it probably has
>       for others, somewhere (Richard Stanley)
>    4. Re: Testing and Development Laboratories (seb)
>    5. Re: jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it probably has
>       for others, somewhere (Jonathan Otto)
>    6. Re: jatropha does not burn well for us ....but it probably
>       has for others, somewhere (Paul S. Anderson)
>    7. Jatropha seeds wanted in USA - can you bring to ETHOS?
>       (Paul S. Anderson)
>    8. Re: Testing and Development Laboratories (Otto Formo)
>    9. Re: jatropha does not burn well for us ....but it probably
>       has for others, somewhere (Boston Nyer)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:39:10 -0700
> From: Boston Nyer <bostonnyer at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] (no subject)
> Message-ID:
>         <AANLkTi=Fnsf22+O=fRbvhCvPbSHOG1OUwc_YavO-bOPQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> I have a related question to this discussion, which I think is interesting.
> 
> At CU, we have a Jatropha project that you fielded some questions about a
> few months ago.  As I'm sure you've heard, Jatropha seedcake does not burn
> well, not even close.  So, one of our questions now is:  what can we do with
> this waste stream this is both useful and desirable?
> 
> One approach we will test is to carbonize the material and for biochar
> briquettes (and a water filter media, etc.).  However, I wholeheartedly
> agree with your sentiment on biochar briquettes.  What is your opinion if
> the ag-waste doesn't burn well normally?  It still seems a bit contrived,
> eh?
> 
> I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective.
> 
> Cheers,
> Boston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Richard Stanley
> <rstanley at legacyfound.org>wrote:
> 
> > Jessica,
> >  Me again, I answered some of these questions to you in a post directly to
> > you (as that one  came directly from you) --a few minutes ago, but
> > let me add a few comments in reponse to your other questions here...( am
> > responding in-kind below...)
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Jessica De Clerck wrote:
> >
> >  Hello,
> >
> > I am looking for some insight into an array of issues around fuel
> > briquettes and stoves.  I apologize for the long list!  I am hoping
> > Crispin, Dr. TLUD, Richard and others can answer some of these.
> >
> > *Burning Stalks*
> > At Stove Camp 2010, we used TLUDs to burn what I recall were maize stalks
> > in Dr. Anderson?s TLUD. It worked great.  However, if maize or sugar cane
> > stalks can be burned for fuel, why are people not already using this fuel in
> > three stone fires, or are they?  I did not see this in Uganda, but I do
> > not know about Haiti or elsewhere (where I will be working soon).  I
> > understand that a TLUD or other stoves would do a better job of cleaning up
> > emissions. -But if a person had access to free fuel in their fields, I would
> > think they must have a good reason for not burning it, even in an open fire.
> >
> > Does the fact that it burns quicker than wood deter people because it
> > requires more effort to feed it constantly into the stove?  Or does it not
> > burn as cleanly as wood?
> >
> > *Consumption Rate*
> > Does burning fuel in a TLUD or other stove slow down the rate at which fuel
> > burns as compared with fuel burned in an open fire?  It seems to me it
> > would because the airflow into the fire would be more controlled in a stove.
> >
> > *Density*
> > This also brings up the question of the density of a fuel briquette.  What
> > difference does density make?  It seems like we pay a lot of attention to
> > this, but to me it seems the only difference is that the less dense the
> > briquette the quicker it will burn. Does a less dense briquette burn hotter
> > (assuming identical material is used in each briquette)?
> >
> > It burns quicker but not necessarly hotter. Density is roughly equivalent
> > to duration assuming same blend and stove . Greaster density also equates
> > (ex any special starters) to harder start with above assumptions also in
> > effect. You 'pays yer money and takes yer choice', eh ?
> >
> >
> > *Briquette Stoves*
> > I have recently built another RokStove or Holey Rocket ?the side fed rocket
> > stove for holey briquettes out of clay and sawdust.  I made it to the best
> > specifications I could come up with after considering rocket stove
> > principles, which was 9? long, 15? tall, and 5? in diameter both in the
> > feeding area and combustion chamber. Once the stove has been fired, these
> > dimensions will have shrunk approximately 10%.   This will leave a gap
> > between the stove and my 4?x 2? holey (1? hole) briquettes.  I would like
> > to know if anyone else has had experience in building or using these stoves
> > so that we may share lessons learned.  I already speak with Rok and he?s a
> > great help.
> >
> > Rok is  the guy for this. He speaks of the need to think a lot about
> > internal hole size to regulate primary air volume and via my own insight
> > gained through such Stoves group luminaries such as Crispin here,
> > temperature...The annular space between the OD of the briquettes and the ID
> > of the feed tube, is also important.
> >
> >
> > What other stoves have been tested and are recommended for burning holey
> > briquettes?  I am assuming unless the hole is used as an air channel as in
> > the RokStove, the hole in the briquette makes no difference (for example if
> > the briquettes are just put in a pile, or used in a gasifier, because
> > otherwise a briquette can be broken into pieces if too large).
> >
> > Rite-e-o on that one, save the one fact that the hole greatly acceletates
> > --and makes more consistent-- the drying rate. Add too, the effect of the
> > hole in burning them up right, in the three stove open burn situation. ie.,
> > ex any stove surround structure.
> >
> >
> > *Green Charcoal vs. Uncarbonized Briquettes*
> > Lastly, has anyone done a study of the emissions from making ?green
> > charcoal??  I see what Amy Smith is doing with the kilns to make charcoal
> > and the Adam Retort and there seems to be a ton of smoke coming off the
> > kilns in the process of making the charcoal.  I understand it is an
> > improvement from traditional charcoal making, but I wonder if anyone has
> > measured the emissions so that I can compare it to other processes.
> >
> > Shhh. you are unveiling the big secret  of the carboniser school  here !!!
> > We don't want to talk about the smoke and energy losses due to
> > carbonisation..not as they occur in the user site and all conditions they
> > live with...and after the techies have left and the ted talks and photo op's
> > wither from our memories.
> >
> > But why carbonise at all if you have access to the charcoal crumbs and
> > fines and dust found around every charcoal sellers stall everywhere in the
> > third world...?  Thie waste accounts for between 15 and 20% of the lump
> > charcoal being brought into the stall and sold through it...You blend that
> > amount into the briquettes and you double the market for the seller or
> > proportionately reduce their demand on charcoal while earning them the same
> > income... but I'm being a bi facetious: It makes sence where there is no
> > charcoal dust--I guess...
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have recommendations on what raw materials ought to be burned
> > in a retort vs. crushed and made into uncarbonized briquettes? I?m
> > thinking coconut shells and other hard materials that cannot be crushed
> > easily, but I would appreciate more input.
> >
> >
> > Thank you all for you time.
> >
> > Jessica De Clerck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Boston Nyer
> Graduate Student
> Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> (585) 503-3459
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110120/5a3eb015/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:57:32 -0500
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] (no subject)
> Message-ID: <071901cbb8e4$a9569870$fc03c950$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear Boston
> 
> 
> 
> Can you send me some jatropha seed cake?
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, where are you? If it is more convenient, you can send it to SeTAR
> in Johannesburg and I will deal with it there.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard to believe there is no easy way to burn it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Crispin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Boston Nyer
> Sent: 20 January 2011 15:39
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] (no subject)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> 
> 
> I have a related question to this discussion, which I think is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> At CU, we have a Jatropha project that you fielded some questions about a
> few months ago.  As I'm sure you've heard, Jatropha seedcake does not burn
> well, not even close.  So, one of our questions now is:  what can we do with
> this waste stream this is both useful and desirable?
> 
> 
> 
> One approach we will test is to carbonize the material and for biochar
> briquettes (and a water filter media, etc.).  However, I wholeheartedly
> agree with your sentiment on biochar briquettes.  What is your opinion if
> the ag-waste doesn't burn well normally?  It still seems a bit contrived,
> eh?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Boston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110120/370fba99/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:27:15 -0800
> From: Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> To: Boston Nyer <bostonnyer at gmail.com>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it
>         probably        has for others, somewhere
> Message-ID: <B837756A-A940-4153-B144-74915BDED64E at legacyfound.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Boston,
> I would toss this question out to the combustion experts on the stoves and biomass lists...here.
> 
> I have not tried it out but I know that others must have by now. The idea is to get behind the reason for poor combustion Crispin if I have him correctly implies that there is  no poor biomass fuel, only poor stoves...Thats one avenue which the stoves group is particularly good at.
> 
> The larger question is: What is missing by this process: What is missing is the 90% of the rest of us in the inquiry. I'm referring to the faceless bystanders you see as CNN rushes to its big story in the so called developing world.
> 
> People have been sorting undesired elements out of biomass for as long as we  have had fire-- probably before that: Indeed the fire must have excused lots of pre processing.   Bio-matter has been is washed/soaked/dried/winnowed/beaten/buried/ and blended for specific culinary or health applications for centuries...
> That we notice one kind of biomass which burns badly and therefore has to be especially processed lest it not pass the test of our western  intellectual inquiry-- is not necessarily a definitive test of its potential suitability at all.  It merely reflects the fact that the "we" are probably in need of going  out amongst the rest of us to find out, the why, how and the what--- the rest of us  have been doing...
> It may be that no one has ever successfully burned jatropa...but, personally,  I would not bet on it.
> 
> 
> If you like coffee, take a read of this example. The Inca's had perfected a simple method of soaking the roasted ground beans in cold water then draining off the liquid after a certain time period (~12 hrs) to  separate out the oil and acid from the real coffee "caffeol" element. The oil and acid remained bound to the roasted grounds,  while the pure coffee element nicely disburses into the water as a concentrate--for use with then Hot water or cold to make a really good cuppa java! Even the cheap sawdust the discount houses offer as coffee grounds will make a really good cup (Starbucks beware).
> 
> The Incas may have evolved this procedure for coffeemaking, more out of necessity than for the inherent pursuit of the perfect cuppa joe,  because in the altiplano at least, they lived on- or above- tree line ~9,500 ft where fuelwood consumption for cooking is about 3 X greater than at the more common sea level to say 4000 ft  elevations.
> 
> The result was however, that the resulting coffee came out with far less oil and acid with greatly reduced chance of the associated stomach and heart burn (which we try to mask with sugar and cream nowadays).
> 
> The incas mastered  this process  several hundred years ago, well before the process was "discovered" by two young scientists from xyz university en el norte, as the  story goes, "working in their garage, etc., etc"... You can read about the new cold brew process at ( www.toddycafe.com ) but if you ever venture into a coffee shop in Cusco Peru, you may find small cups of concentrated liquid coffee made by the same process.  It was well established before I ever set foot in the altiplano of Peru,  ten years ago.
> 
> Sure it has since been analysed, packaged and widely sold in the states now--we are very good at that part--but in all honesty it began far before we even set eyes upon the notion..
> 
> The point of this digression is this:  I have little doubt that if you were to venture out into the jatropa-using world (not just the development project world or institutional research world)  but the user-on-the-ground world, you will probably discover how somebody somewhere has figured out a way to process it as fuel...
> 
> The ideal is to do this and to frame your scientific investigations at the same time: to run the "field" investigation in parallel and collaboratively with the lab analysis. Then you get not only the best of both worlds as information and data sources: You form a link to-- and directly or indirectly- help to empower those who can not only benefit from  the results but who can become teachers of others for the future.
> 
> Then publish it with all your collaborrants, for the rest of us. It  will be a great contribution !
> 
> Pressing on,
> 
> Richard Stanley
> www.legacyfound.org
> Ashland Or.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Boston Nyer wrote:
> 
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a related question to this discussion, which I think is interesting.
> >
> > At CU, we have a Jatropha project that you fielded some questions about a few months ago.  As I'm sure you've heard, Jatropha seedcake does not burn well, not even close.  So, one of our questions now is:  what can we do with this waste stream this is both useful and desirable?
> >
> > One approach we will test is to carbonize the material and for biochar briquettes (and a water filter media, etc.).  However, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment on biochar briquettes.  What is your opinion if the ag-waste doesn't burn well normally?  It still seems a bit contrived, eh?
> >
> > I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Boston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org> wrote:
> > Jessica,
> >  Me again, I answered some of these questions to you in a post directly to you (as that one  came directly from you) --a few minutes ago, but
> > let me add a few comments in reponse to your other questions here...( am responding in-kind below...)
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Jessica De Clerck wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am looking for some insight into an array of issues around fuel briquettes and stoves.  I apologize for the long list!  I am hoping Crispin, Dr. TLUD, Richard and others can answer some of these.
> >>
> >> Burning Stalks
> >> At Stove Camp 2010, we used TLUDs to burn what I recall were maize stalks in Dr. Anderson?s TLUD. It worked great.  However, if maize or sugar cane stalks can be burned for fuel, why are people not already using this fuel in three stone fires, or are they?  I did not see this in Uganda, but I do not know about Haiti or elsewhere (where I will be working soon).  I understand that a TLUD or other stoves would do a better job of cleaning up emissions. -But if a person had access to free fuel in their fields, I would think they must have a good reason for not burning it, even in an open fire.
> >>
> >> Does the fact that it burns quicker than wood deter people because it requires more effort to feed it constantly into the stove?  Or does it not burn as cleanly as wood?
> >>
> >> Consumption Rate
> >> Does burning fuel in a TLUD or other stove slow down the rate at which fuel burns as compared with fuel burned in an open fire?  It seems to me it would because the airflow into the fire would be more controlled in a stove.
> >>
> >> Density
> >> This also brings up the question of the density of a fuel briquette.  What difference does density make?  It seems like we pay a lot of attention to this, but to me it seems the only difference is that the less dense the briquette the quicker it will burn. Does a less dense briquette burn hotter (assuming identical material is used in each briquette)?
> > It burns quicker but not necessarly hotter. Density is roughly equivalent to duration assuming same blend and stove . Greaster density also equates (ex any special starters) to harder start with above assumptions also in effect. You 'pays yer money and takes yer choice', eh ?
> >
> >>
> >> Briquette Stoves
> >> I have recently built another RokStove or Holey Rocket ?the side fed rocket stove for holey briquettes out of clay and sawdust.  I made it to the best specifications I could come up with after considering rocket stove principles, which was 9? long, 15? tall, and 5? in diameter both in the feeding area and combustion chamber. Once the stove has been fired, these dimensions will have shrunk approximately 10%.   This will leave a gap between the stove and my 4?x 2? holey (1? hole) briquettes.  I would like to know if anyone else has had experience in building or using these stoves so that we may share lessons learned.  I already speak with Rok and he?s a great help.
> > Rok is  the guy for this. He speaks of the need to think a lot about internal hole size to regulate primary air volume and via my own insight gained through such Stoves group luminaries such as Crispin here, temperature...The annular space between the OD of the briquettes and the ID of the feed tube, is also important.
> >
> >>
> >> What other stoves have been tested and are recommended for burning holey briquettes?  I am assuming unless the hole is used as an air channel as in the RokStove, the hole in the briquette makes no difference (for example if the briquettes are just put in a pile, or used in a gasifier, because otherwise a briquette can be broken into pieces if too large).
> >
> > Rite-e-o on that one, save the one fact that the hole greatly acceletates --and makes more consistent-- the drying rate. Add too, the effect of the hole in burning them up right, in the three stove open burn situation. ie., ex any stove surround structure.
> >>
> >> Green Charcoal vs. Uncarbonized Briquettes
> >> Lastly, has anyone done a study of the emissions from making ?green charcoal??  I see what Amy Smith is doing with the kilns to make charcoal and the Adam Retort and there seems to be a ton of smoke coming off the kilns in the process of making the charcoal.  I understand it is an improvement from traditional charcoal making, but I wonder if anyone has measured the emissions so that I can compare it to other processes.
> > Shhh. you are unveiling the big secret  of the carboniser school  here !!! We don't want to talk about the smoke and energy losses due to carbonisation..not as they occur in the user site and all conditions they live with...and after the techies have left and the ted talks and photo op's wither from our memories.
> >
> > But why carbonise at all if you have access to the charcoal crumbs and fines and dust found around every charcoal sellers stall everywhere in the third world...?  Thie waste accounts for between 15 and 20% of the lump charcoal being brought into the stall and sold through it...You blend that amount into the briquettes and you double the market for the seller or proportionately reduce their demand on charcoal while earning them the same income... but I'm being a bi facetious: It makes sence where there is no charcoal dust--I guess...
> >
> >>
> >> Does anyone have recommendations on what raw materials ought to be burned in a retort vs. crushed and made into uncarbonized briquettes? I?m thinking coconut shells and other hard materials that cannot be crushed easily, but I would appreciate more input.
> >>
> >> Thank you all for you time.
> >>
> >> Jessica De Clerck
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> >> Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Boston Nyer
> > Graduate Student
> > Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering
> > University of Colorado at Boulder
> > (585) 503-3459
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110120/fc479099/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:44:40 -0800
> From: seb <sbentson at aprovecho.org>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> Message-ID: <1295487880.8995.15.camel at seb-laptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Aprovecho specializes in setting up regional testing centers. The
> equipment and personnel your lab needs depends on what you want to do.
> Two broad categories are the stove's emissions and fuel performance. You
> could also focus on fuel production alone.
> 
> Much of what is learned comes from taking the time to carefully carry
> out tests and record in an objective way what is observed. Observation
> is more important than discovery or success.
> 
> Sam
> 
> 
> > > From: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:53:26 -0800
> 
> > > What would labs need funding support for? Equipment? Personnel?
> > > Conducting tests, design and development? Or all of these?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:30:55 -0500
> From: Jonathan Otto <ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> To: <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] jatropa does not burn well for us ....but it
>         probably has for others, somewhere
> Message-ID: <SNT137-w3155F72E2F547F8142AEFDD6F80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Not sure where this fits into the stream of 19 simultaneous subjects, but here goes:
> 
> We have a natural draft TLUD developed specifically to combust whole Jatropha seeds -- quite a challenge given the intense energy in those long chain hydrocarbons.
> 
> For years we assumed since the main energy was in the seeds' oil, that we needed to remove it first and make a liquid fuel stove.  Not true.
> 
> Paul Anderson and the other heavies at Biomass Energy  Foundation showed us solid fuel vaporization technology at CHAB Camp last August, and 6 months later we're planning on field testing in Tanzania in March, and if all goes well ( a huge caveat to be sure) we'll be in production shortly thereafter.
> 
> Very low emissions ... 18% biochar ...  Home grown fuel from hedges around fields and farmsteads ... cost less than 50% of the price of charcoal.
> 
> Jonathan Otto
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110120/2fe641cb/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:37:27 -0600
> From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,      Richard Stanley
>         <rstanley at legacyfound.org>, "davidpotto at gmail.com"
>         <davidpotto at gmail.com>, Jonathan Otto <ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Discussion, stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] jatropha does not burn well for us ....but it
>         probably        has for others, somewhere
> Message-ID:
>         <20110120193727.664826cqk3djuyxw at redbirdmail.illinoisstate.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
>         format="flowed"
> 
> Dear Boston and all,
> 
> I hope you can come to ETHOS meeting next weekend 28-30 Jan in Seattle
> and see the Jatropha-seed stove that will be discussed in a
> presentation and fired up at the stove demo.  It is by "Jet City
> Stoveworks" (JCSW) (Seattle is Jet City) and "Pamoja" (NGO working in
> Tanzania).  I have worked with them on this stove.
> 
> The answer is yes, jatropha can be burned cleanly in stoves.  but
> there are challenges.
> 
> You and CU (Colorado Univ.?) and others with Jatropha efforts could
> fit in well with additional work on burning jatropha.  Pamoja and JCSW
> and I (independently or together) would be glad to collaborate.
> 
> There could be several ways to handle jatropha as a stove fuel.  We
> are working (successfully) with one, which is to use the TLUD
> combustion technology.  In brief, because the top-lit updraft (TLUD)
> functions with a decending pyrolysis front that is quite well behaved
> and uniform, the flaming pyrolysis (limited oxygen present) provides
> heat that vaporizes the jatropha oils, releasing them as gases along
> with the pyrolysis gases.  The challenge is in the combustion of so
> much gas and that type of gas (probably longer-chain hydrocarbons).
> 
> To handle the jatropha press cake, pelletizing or briquetting is
> probably the best option.  And the press cake could be mixed with some
> other biomass.  Loose presscake alone would block the needed air flow
> in the TLUD.
> 
> I will leave the details of the Pamoja/JCSW to them to present 9 days
> from now.  Then we could get into the real details.
> 
> Request:  Do you (at CU) or anyone else have any supply of natural
> (not pressed) jatropha seeds?   JCSW and I are looking for some kilos.
> 
> --
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Known to some as:  Dr. TLUD    Doc    Professor
> Phone (USA): 309-452-7072   SKYPE: paultlud   Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> 
> 
> Quoting Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>:   -- snipped --
> 
> > Boston,
> > I would toss this question out to the combustion experts on the
> > stoves and biomass lists...here.
> >
> > I have not tried it out but I know that others must have by now. The
> > idea is to get behind the reason for poor combustion Crispin if I
> > have him correctly implies that there is  no poor biomass fuel, only
> > poor stoves...Thats one avenue which the stoves group is
> > particularly good at.
> >
> > It may be that no one has ever successfully burned jatropa...but,
> > personally,  I would not bet on it.
> >   snipped   The point of this digression is this:  I have little
> > doubt that if you were to venture out into the jatropa-using world
> > (not just the development project world or institutional research
> > world)  but the user-on-the-ground world, you will probably discover
> > how somebody somewhere has figured out a way to process it as fuel...
> >
> > The ideal is to do this and to frame your scientific investigations
> > at the same time: to run the "field" investigation in parallel and
> > collaboratively with the lab analysis. Then you get not only the
> > best of both worlds as information and data sources: You form a link
> > to-- and directly or indirectly- help to empower those who can not
> > only benefit from  the results but who can become teachers of others
> > for the future.
> 
> NOTE by PSA:  This is what Pamoja is doing.
> >
> > Then publish it with all your collaborrants, for the rest of us. It
> > will be a great contribution !
> >
> > Pressing on,
> >
> > Richard Stanley
> > www.legacyfound.org
> > Ashland Or.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Boston Nyer wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >>
> >> I have a related question to this discussion, which I think is interesting.
> >>
> >> At CU, we have a Jatropha project that you fielded some questions
> >> about a few months ago.  As I'm sure you've heard, Jatropha
> >> seedcake does not burn well, not even close.  So, one of our
> >> questions now is:  what can we do with this waste stream this is
> >> both useful and desirable?
> >>
> >> One approach we will test is to carbonize the material and for
> >> biochar briquettes (and a water filter media, etc.).  However, I
> >> wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment on biochar briquettes.
> >> What is your opinion if the ag-waste doesn't burn well normally?
> >> It still seems a bit contrived, eh?
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Boston
> >>
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:00:06 -0600
> From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,      Jonathan Otto
>         <ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> Cc: ETHOS - Listserve <ethos at vrac.iastate.edu>,
>         stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Stoves] Jatropha seeds wanted in USA - can you bring to
>         ETHOS?
> Message-ID:
>         <20110120200006.14573vaecow0c90g at redbirdmail.illinoisstate.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
>         format="flowed"
> 
> Stovers and ETHOS persons,
> 
> Please contact me or Jonathan Otto if you have some jatropha seeds
> already in North America,
> 
> OR
> 
> If you are coming to ETHOS (or on any trip to America) from a place
> where jatropha is growing, and would bring some kilos in your luggage.
> 
> We need the seeds for continuing tests of their combustion.
> 
> It is legal to bring jatropha seeds into America (clean -- no dirt on
> them --) and declare them at customs entry point.  Tell the
> agricultural inspectors what they are and tell them that they will be
> burned.  Several of us have done this already without any difficulty,
> but we need travellers to bring more seeds.
> 
> Once in North America, we can send them by postal service to the
> location of the research.  Or bring them to ETHOS in Seattle next
> week, and we will take care of them from that point onward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Known to some as:  Dr. TLUD    Doc    Professor
> Phone (USA): 309-452-7072   SKYPE: paultlud   Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:07:15 +0100 (MET)
> From: Otto Formo <formo-o at online.no>
> To: Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com>,       Discussion of biomass
>         cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> Message-ID:
>         <29547223.998.1295597235656.JavaMail.adm-moff at moffice2.nsc.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Dear Frank,
> I very much agree with you.
> Tests according to protocol should be run by certified and indepemdent labs and you should compare - apples to apples, not like it is to day.
> The independent aspect is the most important one, either you produce stoves and let others do the testing or you do the testing as an independent reserach center and let others produce the stoves.
> Internal testing should of cource continue, but to be "approved" by the GACC, tests should be done by independent research centres world wide.
> That should be the one and only way forward.
> 
> Iam about to contact SINTEF, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thermal Energy Division in Norway about these issues, right now.
> Otto
> 
> > From: Frank Shields [frank at compostlab.com]
> > Sent: 2011-01-20 19:04:44 MET
> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org]
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> >
> > Tom, Crispin and Stovers,
> >
> > But first we need to get organized. Common testing protocol run by
> > certified labs -so apples to apples. This takes an organization and
> > money to put it all together. Otherwise we get nowhere as I see it.
> > Having a list of all the labs working on stoves is a -great- start.
> > Getting the labs to send SOP's to a central organization that wants to
> > take on organization the QC program may be a second. Publish the
> > collection of SOP's for distribution for comment could be a third. Then
> > picking ones for all labs to use a fourth. Organizing a protocol to
> > update, add to, remove test methods a fifth. Something like that.
> >
> > Otherwise Crispins work helps him develop his stoves and Aprovecho
> > methods help them better their stoves - but Crispins data cannot be
> > compared to the data Aprovecho produces and the stoves they both produce
> > cannot be compared to each other until the same protocol is used and an
> > independent certified lab does the testing.
> >
> > Regards
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Miles wrote:
> >
> > > Crispin,
> > >
> > > Good examples and great ideas.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > *From:* stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > > [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of
> > > *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:01 PM
> > > *To:* 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Testing and Development Laboratories
> > >
> > > Dear Tom
> > >
> > > We need a bigger testing footprint. Many many stove are promoted
> > > without people have a real clue as to their fuel saving or emissions
> > > profile and the reason is primarily no access to any testing or the
> > > testing was not relevant, not even to mention its accuracy.
> > >
> > >>The reason for asking is that one way to stimulate stove improvement
> > > might be enable producers to access and get support from labs.
> > >
> > > I believe the progress made by John Davies, on his own, was in good
> > > measure because real time testing could show him what was and was not
> > > better, sifting through his hunches about how things should work.
> > > Maybe he can support that. It certainly helped me. I was stuck in
> > > ?visual land? until I was handed a small combustion analyser.
> > >
> > >>I have seen situations where a design gets "stuck" without being
> > > further developed due to lack of technical support.
> > >
> > > That support is the sort of thing you get at the SEET lab: bring it I,
> > > make it perform, we will let you know what we think would make it
> > > better, then demonstrate it to convince you. Emissions reductions by a
> > > factor of 10 are routine with this method.
> > >
> > >>Organizations involved in production and dissemination often don't
> > > have the appropriate resources.
> > >
> > > It is a good use of Global Alliance funds because perhaps 100 new
> > > products are needed.
> > >
> > >>What would labs need funding support for? Equipment? Personnel?
> > > Conducting tests, design and development? Or all of these?
> > >
> > > All those and post-grads. I have been trying to get 5 physics students
> > > into the SEET lab for more than a year with no success. No one will
> > > look ahead 5 years to the time when we need a new coterie of people
> > > skilled at testing and familiar with the issues of standard setting
> > > and certification (implying legislation and inspection).
> > >
> > > Design and Development has to be backed up by access to real time
> > > emissions and thermal efficiency testing. The task-based approach
> > > often used till now hides too many thing and can waste a great deal of
> > > effort.
> > >
> > > Take a look at the attached charts. There is only one small difference
> > > between these two tests (same stove) something detected in a real time
> > > examination of the emissions.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Crispin
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >
> > >to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >
> > >to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> > >http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> > >
> > >for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > >http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > >Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > >http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:37:47 -0700
> From: Boston Nyer <bostonnyer at gmail.com>
> To: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Cc: "davidpotto at gmail.com" <davidpotto at gmail.com>,      Kristen Matsumura
>         <kristen.matsumura at gmail.com>,  Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] jatropha does not burn well for us ....but it
>         probably has for others, somewhere
> Message-ID:
>         <AANLkTik8eHSAs4OyJSFN25E59gi6dB=BU1=7zsha_OQd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Dr. Anderson,
> 
> I know that the University of Florida - Lee County Extension Services -
> Agriculture and Natural Resources has plenty of Jatropha seeds.  They
> offered to send us some a few months back.  You can inquire with Fitzroy
> Beckford (fbeckford at leegov.com) or Martha Avila (MAvila at leegov.com).
> 
> I'm excited to hear more about your TLUD that runs on Jatropha seeds.
>  Unfortunately, I'm in Bangladesh and won't be able to attend ETHOS.
>  However, Kristen Matsumura (cc-ed) is also working on the Jatropha research
> at CU and will be there.
> 
> I look forward to hearing more about it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Boston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Paul S. Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>wrote:
> 
> > Dear Boston and all,
> >
> > I hope you can come to ETHOS meeting next weekend 28-30 Jan in Seattle and
> > see the Jatropha-seed stove that will be discussed in a presentation and
> > fired up at the stove demo.  It is by "Jet City Stoveworks" (JCSW) (Seattle
> > is Jet City) and "Pamoja" (NGO working in Tanzania).  I have worked with
> > them on this stove.
> >
> > The answer is yes, jatropha can be burned cleanly in stoves.  but there are
> > challenges.
> >
> > You and CU (Colorado Univ.?) and others with Jatropha efforts could fit in
> > well with additional work on burning jatropha.  Pamoja and JCSW and I
> > (independently or together) would be glad to collaborate.
> >
> > There could be several ways to handle jatropha as a stove fuel.  We are
> > working (successfully) with one, which is to use the TLUD combustion
> > technology.  In brief, because the top-lit updraft (TLUD) functions with a
> > decending pyrolysis front that is quite well behaved and uniform, the
> > flaming pyrolysis (limited oxygen present) provides heat that vaporizes the
> > jatropha oils, releasing them as gases along with the pyrolysis gases.  The
> > challenge is in the combustion of so much gas and that type of gas (probably
> > longer-chain hydrocarbons).
> >
> > To handle the jatropha press cake, pelletizing or briquetting is probably
> > the best option.  And the press cake could be mixed with some other biomass.
> >  Loose presscake alone would block the needed air flow in the TLUD.
> >
> > I will leave the details of the Pamoja/JCSW to them to present 9 days from
> > now.  Then we could get into the real details.
> >
> > Request:  Do you (at CU) or anyone else have any supply of natural (not
> > pressed) jatropha seeds?   JCSW and I are looking for some kilos.
> >
> > --
> > Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> > Known to some as:  Dr. TLUD    Doc    Professor
> > Phone (USA): 309-452-7072   SKYPE: paultlud   Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> >
> >
> > Quoting Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>:   -- snipped --
> >
> >  Boston,
> >> I would toss this question out to the combustion experts on the stoves and
> >> biomass lists...here.
> >>
> >> I have not tried it out but I know that others must have by now. The idea
> >> is to get behind the reason for poor combustion Crispin if I have him
> >> correctly implies that there is  no poor biomass fuel, only poor
> >> stoves...Thats one avenue which the stoves group is particularly good at.
> >>
> >> It may be that no one has ever successfully burned jatropa...but,
> >> personally,  I would not bet on it.
> >>  snipped   The point of this digression is this:  I have little doubt that
> >> if you were to venture out into the jatropa-using world (not just the
> >> development project world or institutional research world)  but the
> >> user-on-the-ground world, you will probably discover how somebody somewhere
> >> has figured out a way to process it as fuel...
> >>
> >> The ideal is to do this and to frame your scientific investigations at the
> >> same time: to run the "field" investigation in parallel and collaboratively
> >> with the lab analysis. Then you get not only the best of both worlds as
> >> information and data sources: You form a link to-- and directly or
> >> indirectly- help to empower those who can not only benefit from  the results
> >> but who can become teachers of others for the future.
> >>
> >
> > NOTE by PSA:  This is what Pamoja is doing.
> >
> >>
> >> Then publish it with all your collaborrants, for the rest of us. It  will
> >> be a great contribution !
> >>
> >> Pressing on,
> >>
> >> Richard Stanley
> >> www.legacyfound.org
> >> Ashland Or.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Boston Nyer wrote:
> >>
> >>  Hi Richard,
> >>>
> >>> I have a related question to this discussion, which I think is
> >>> interesting.
> >>>
> >>> At CU, we have a Jatropha project that you fielded some questions about a
> >>> few months ago.  As I'm sure you've heard, Jatropha seedcake does not burn
> >>> well, not even close.  So, one of our questions now is:  what can we do with
> >>> this waste stream this is both useful and desirable?
> >>>
> >>> One approach we will test is to carbonize the material and for biochar
> >>> briquettes (and a water filter media, etc.).  However, I wholeheartedly
> >>> agree with your sentiment on biochar briquettes.  What is your opinion if
> >>> the ag-waste doesn't burn well normally?  It still seems a bit contrived,
> >>> eh?
> >>>
> >>> I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Boston
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Boston Nyer
> Graduate Student
> Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> (585) 503-3459
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110121/3ad864f1/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 5, Issue 21
> *************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 


More information about the Stoves mailing list