[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]
lh cheng
lhkind at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 00:06:08 CST 2017
if it is this place in this list we listen to the psalms of praising of
GACC/WBT/rape prevention thing, then it is in this list we also can hear
criticism of those things.
regards
2017-12-22 0:21 GMT+08:00 <tmiles at trmiles.com>:
> Nikhil,
>
>
>
> So what will you do with this list? Do you personally intend to lead an
> effort to change testing protocols and emissions policies? I don’t see how
> that is possible if you are not willing, or able, to visit the offices in
> Washington, DC, New York, or conferences, committee meetings, or project
> sites in Seattle, or New Delhi, and elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Nikhil Desai
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:49 PM
> *To:* Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Cc:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; kgharris <
> kgharris at sonic.net>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Ron:
>
> No offense intended, but I am baffled by your defense of the WBT. What is
> the evidence that WBT is useful in designing a useful stove that is in fact
> used?
>
> I am grateful to Crispin for a succinct formulation:
>
> - Test protocols should list the measurement range and precision
> required to get a valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does
> not contain *any such description that would produce results within
> the range required by the IWA. *
> - Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the
> WBT document. The method is defective on many counts – it contains *approximately
> 75 systematic errors at present. Some are major errors and can be (but
> might not be) misleading.*
> - I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a
> pre-screening method before field trials are attempted. That is nonsense. *A
> stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain meals might perform
> very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the fie*ld. Numerous
> investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better
> in the field if they perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We
> can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ as a rating.
> - The second thing I object to is *conceptual errors embedded in the
> test, and the arithmetic errors, some of which are fundamental to the
> claims made for the results. Obviously the claims for the ‘specific fuel
> consumption’ are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed.*
>
> Which ones of these claims merit dismissal rather than debate?
>
> I for one disagree with Crispin's last point - about fuel consumption. Why
> shouldn't fuel left in char be given an energy credit?
>
> After all, it is not as if we have any service standard and gain anything
> by computing efficiency only for that service (namely, cooking).
>
> To me, that kind of efficiency calculation has no inherent merit. It is
> perfectly ok to tell a user, "For five kg of fuel of this type and this
> much MJ/kg LHV, x% will be used for boiling water under test conditions, y%
> for making z kg of char with this much MJ energy, and the rest of the
> energy is dissipated to the surroundings."
>
> That doesn't fit in the IWA scheme of efficiency Tiers, which
> understandably led (or it seemed to me) Tami to raise the basic conceptual
> question - how does one treat efficiency in co-production (space heating,
> water boiling, lighting, mosquito removal, what not)?
>
> If we had enough data to characterize the baseline stove - not just in
> terms of IWA metrics but some of those as found to be material to usability
> - we could test an "improved stove" against that baseline.
>
> But we have no idea of what a 3Stone Fire (TSF) does where for whom, nor
> whether there are varieties of TSF and what are termed as "primitive
> stoves". We have no data on pollutant emission factors concentrations,
> exposures, disease incidence.
>
> Nor on the varieties of solid fuels.
>
> To WHO, "solid fuels" are "dirty" by definition, and hourly average PM2.5
> emission rates per MJ useful and per minute for Tier 4 are by definition
> "truly health protective".
>
> There is zero basis for these claims. in theory of consumer behavior,
> which I submit is what matters in fuel/stove choice, subject to local
> situation of relative fuel prices and stove prices.
>
> You ask "whether Crispin (and Xavier, probably Nikhil and Phillip) think
> we should ignore all the additional, reported non-efficiency data that
> regularly comes out of the WBT. These seem very important to many funders,
> so it seems to me (and Kirk and many on this list) that we must have a
> means of getting that non-efficiency data. If not using something very
> much like the present WBT (similar duration, similar pot sizes, water
> quantity, etc), what do the opponents recommend?"
>
> I have several answers to this: a) Are you in the market to please the
> customer so that the stoves are used with appropriate fuels and their use
> shows the impacts you supposedly desire or are you in the market to please
> funders, some of whom have been fooled by baseless promises of saving
> forests, climate, health, and women's chastity, regardless of whether the
> stove is demonstrably usable?
>
> b) What is the basis for IWA metrics and Tiers in terms of a historical or
> hypothetical future baseline? and,
>
> c) What is the theory of change? That some funders can be fooled again by
> selling avoided deforestation, avoided climate change, avoided DALYs,
> avoided rapes? How much money over what time period and who would sell or
> give away the ISO-blessed stoves where, how fast, and achieve what?
>
> Without a baseline and without a promised change - something I see CDM and
> Ci-Dev doing, without the lip service for "clean" and "health protective" -
> what is the relevance of TC-285 partying?
>
> Other notes below between ***.
>
> Nikhil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> List: Crispin and Kirk (authors of the several preceding notes in this
> thread - with a non-pertinent title)
>
>
>
> My impression is that Crispin didn’t answer Kirk’s question. I interpret
> Kirk to be asking whether Crispin and others who disparage the WBT also
> disparage the measurements of CO2, CO and particulates that accompany the
> efficiency calculations. I think Kirk is asking whether Crispin (and
> Xavier, probably Nikhil and Phillip) think we should ignore all the
> additional, reported non-efficiency data that regularly comes out of the
> WBT. These seem very important to many funders, so it seems to me (and
> Kirk and many on this list) that we must have a means of getting that
> non-efficiency data. If not using something very much like the present WBT
> (similar duration, similar pot sizes, water quantity, etc), what do the
> opponents recommend?
>
>
>
> Other notes below
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Kirk
>
>
>
> If I understand you, you want to know if I object to the WBT calling for
> the use of ‘sensors’ – is that correct?
>
>
>
> All testing uses sensors. Why would someone object to using sensors? How
> else would measurements be made?
>
> *[RWL1: And which parameters now in the WBT are to be kept or removed?
> We need agreement on more than needing and using sensors.*
>
>
>
> *** My view: Those parameters which are valued by the user as desirable
> and make a reliable claim of improvement under the local conditions. ***
>
> The WBT has a fixed testing sequence of power and control. It does not
> represent cooking anywhere in particular, though it says in the
> documentation that it is a proxy for cooking. “Rating stoves” using a
> universal test sequence of operations is nearly pointless because it cannot
> predict what will happen if someone uses it to cook. If the test doesn’t
> represent use, how can the result tell us something that will inform
> policy? You wouldn’t buy a child safety seat that was tested that way.
>
> *[RWL2: Another major question: *
>
> * Is there value in comparing different stoves in both the lab and in the
> field? *
>
> * Or, *
>
> *Should we only trust answers that come from the field?*
>
>
> *** This begs the question of our role and the relevance of our trust.
> It's rather arrogant to demand to be pleased for our unsupported,
> untrustworthy theories at the expense of the customer. ***
>
> Measurements can be made using any instruments you like. Xavier tried
> using one instrument and didn’t like it. He is a customer and was
> dissatisfied. I am not.
>
>
>
> You asked if he objected to *making measurements* is that correct? If so
> I find the question silly, to be frank. We all use instruments to measure
> performance. The instruments required to make measurements mentioned in the
> WBT are not part of the testing protocol, they are part of the test
> apparatus used when conduction the procedures listed in the protocol. Test
> protocols should list the measurement range and precision required to get a
> valid result within a confidence interval. The WBT does not contain any
> such description that would produce results within the range required by
> the IWA. Writers of Standards include such a list of needed equipment so as
> to provide the quality of result needed. This has nothing to do with the
> equipment Xavier bought. It has to do with the test method and the claims
> which an be made for its results. Such things are normally decided at the
> beginning during a conceptual analysis of the purpose of the experiment and
> the quality of results needed.
>
> *[RWL3: Sorry you feel Kirk asked a “silly” question. This is my attempt
> to ask the same, hopefully not “silly” question, which is: *
>
>
>
> * Should we be measuring, in a lab setting (with sensors more
> sophisticated than a clock, thermometer, and scale), CO2, CO, and
> particulates? *
>
>
>
>
>
> * (and asking Kirk if this phrasing is accurate enough)*
>
>
>
> Processing the recorded measurements uses a method included in the WBT
> document. The method is defective on many counts – it contains
> approximately 75 systematic errors at present. Some are major errors and
> can be (but might not be) misleading.
>
> *[RWL4: Where do I go to see that list of 75? I’m especially interested
> in one that “can be (but might not be) misleading”*
>
>
>
> I object to two things: the claim that a WBT can be used as a
> pre-screening method before field trials are attempted. That is nonsense. A
> stove designed to burn a certain fuel and cook certain meals might perform
> very badly on a standard WBT and very well in the field. Numerous
> investigations support my POV. Claims that stoves ‘generally perform better
> in the field if they perform better in the lab using a WBT’. So what? We
> can’t use ‘might generally perform better’ as a rating.
>
> *[RWL5: We would all learn a great deal about this “badly..standard WBT”
> vs “well in the field”. Anyone ever seen this non-“nonsense”?*
>
> *** Crispin may have a different view, but to me, a fuel-free, cook-free
> universal water boiling is prima facie irrelevant. ***
>
> The second thing I object to is conceptual errors embedded in the test,
> and the arithmetic errors, some of which are fundamental to the claims made
> for the results. Obviously the claims for the ‘specific fuel consumption’
> are incorrect if it doesn’t report the fuel consumed.
>
> *[RWL6: I need help on “doesn’t report on the fuel consumed” That has
> been a key part of every test lab report I have ever looked at. This seems
> a good time for anyone to tell us about “arithmetic errors”.*
>
> I look forward to the day when you have your stove tested using a good
> test method that is well grounded in science and engineering so we know
> what its performance actually is. It sounds really good.”.
>
> *[RWL7: I guess it is obvious we have different opinions on whether the
> two labs that tested (and agreed on) several of Kirk’s (progressively
> improved) TLUD designs were each using “a good method”. Measuring the
> stove by Crispin’s (I think still) preferred method [of treating char as
> (not worth measuring) waste] doesn’t seem to me to be moving towards "a
> good” method.*
>
>
> *** Conceptually I agree with you but I don't see what this has to do with
> usability and use of the stove. In certain contexts, if the extra time and
> fuel spent on making char is attractive to the user, who can stop him/her.
> (I would even ignore the question of whether s/he uses the stove for
> cooking at all, and only uses it for char-making. It's not as if we have a
> service standard for cooking or a lab test simulating cooking. We have no
> theory of cookstoves except promising the moon to donors too eager to throw
> money, and throw stoves at the poor.) ***
>
>
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
> *ps: Still hoping for someone to comment on whether last week’s AGU
> report on health impacts of smoke from forest fires has any relation to
> stove health impacts (CO and particulates being apparently quite similar).
> To me, this is a strong endorsement of WHO reports on health that at least
> some stove buyers want.*
>
>
> *** What's the point of commenting on "preliminary findings" without a
> description of the data and methods? See https://agu.confex.com/
> agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/253622. All they say is that "Results show
> that although total PM2.5 concentrations in the US are projected to be
> similar in 2100 as in 2000, the dominant source of PM2.5 will change.
> Under the RCP8.5 climate projection and SSP3 population projection,
> non-fire emissions (mostly anthropogenic) are projected to decrease, but PM
> 2.5 from CONUS and non-US wildfires is projected to increase from
> approximately 20% of all PM2.5 in 2000 to 80% of all PM2.5 in 2100.
> Furthermore, although the US population is expected to decline between 2000
> and 2100, the mortality attributable to wildfire smoke is expected to
> increase from ~25,000 deaths per year in 2000 to ~75,000 deaths per year in
> 2100."That is , another round of gaming without data. Since it is the
> composition of PM2.5 that is supposed to change, the blae has to be put on
> wildfires. WHO blather on HAP DALYs has no data, leave aside their
> realism. Just remember attribution is not causation, and one-way causation
> does not imply reverse causation. There is no empirical bases for HAP
> emission rates, emission loads, concentrations, exposures, and disease
> incidence. The IER is funky, to boot. Attributiability is not avoidability,
> and I see no benefit in taking these models and these experts seriously.
> Academics do many things not worth serious attention. ***
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
>
> Crispin
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kirk H.
> *Sent:* 20-Dec-17 02:18
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Crispin,
>
>
>
> The fact that you did not mention sensors is the problem because sensors
> were in my question.
>
> Since your response did not answer my question but rather pushed your
> anti-WBT agenda, I had no choice but to guess. I did not impute
> disagreements, I could only guess that your disagreement extended to the
> sensors and filters. If they did not then you should have made that clear
> in your response instead of pushing your agenda. I quite clearly asked if
> the CCT is included in the disagreement. No answer in your response. I
> could only make guesses, because your response was so far off from
> answering my question. All I wanted was for my question to be answered.
>
>
>
> Aside from this, thank you for answering my question in this last
> contribution. No you do not include the sensors and filters in the
> disagreement. I can now feel comfortable that the CO, CO2, and particulate
> results are not in dispute.
>
>
>
> When will these other better tests be available for me to use?
>
>
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C95dc052b6f294156f64c08d5471e164a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493116906531727&sdata=FDOp6JcxcaiL9%2BB%2F5Vi7MO48xO9gNr1m4sho09OpP%2BU%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:39 AM
> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Dear Kirk
>
>
>
> I made no mention at all of sensors or quality of equipment, which is not
> specified in the WBT. I think it is not helpful for you or Ron or anyone to
> impute disagreements where there are none. The WBT is a test protocol that
> includes a test method and a set of calculations. What it your point is
> saying ‘it includes the CCT’ because it doesn’t exclude it? Seriously: what
> is your theory of change? Shooting messengers, even hosts of them, does not
> change the message.
>
>
>
> Conceptually there is nothing wrote with heating or boiling water. If you
> want really accurate results, heat water, don’t boil it – a point
> repeatedly emphasized by Prof Lloyd. There is a paper called “From Water
> Boiling Test to Water Heating Test” which explores this, (From WBT to WHT,
> it is called).
>
>
>
> If you want even more accurate assessments of your product, use formulas
> that are derived from first principles. That exercise has been done very
> by the SeTAR Centre and is why the HPT was created – as a way of avoiding
> all the historical errors that have accumulated in the WBT. I mentioned
> the LVH error in the list of woods at the back of the spreadsheet. That
> error was identified in 1987 by Sam Baldwin, someone highly praised in
> certain circles. Yet after 30 year (!) it has still not been corrected by
> Shell, Berkeley, Aprovecho, Tami Bond and ETHOS nor the EPA and GACC.
>
>
>
> How long should we wait for something as simple as a an error in the LHV
> from HHV calculation to be implemented? Do you agree 30 years is a bit
> excessive (and *still* not corrected) is a bit excessive?
>
>
>
> Why should anyone take seriously the system of informal management of its
> “main messenger” that cannot gets its technical house in order? I don’t.
> Neither does Xavier. Not Jiddu. Nor the Indian government nor the Chinese
> government nor many others.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kirk H.
> *Sent:* 19-Dec-17 12:25
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Thank you for your response. My question was if the disagreement was with
> all parts of the test or just the water boiling part. I guess your answer
> means that the disagreement is with all parts of the test including the CO
> sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate sensors and the weighing of the filters,
> as well as the water boiling portion. When you say WBT, you mean all of
> this, not just the water boiling in the pot. I also assume that the CCT is
> included in this, since your response did not exclude it. But since I have
> nothing else available for my use I will continue as is.
>
>
>
> I was using my stove to compare only because it and the fuel were constant
> between Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not to flaunt it
> as a clean stove. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C508e7c300ead46b2ea9808d546a9a7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492616834369342&sdata=NaGH3iFpwknHhuDte1RIdz%2FvvVkaWq9mKs1HvZl20jo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM
> *To: *Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Dear Kirk
>
>
>
> No thinks your stove isn't 'clean and efficient'. In truth we don't know
> what the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets for it are not
> available from Aprovecho (so you said when I asked) and LBNL not only
> doesn't share the spreadsheet behind the performance claims, they do their
> own evaluation using their own method (I wrote to them and asked
> specifically about your stove).
>
>
>
> In the real world. This is simply unacceptable. We do not accept anyone's
> performance rating for which we do know know the method and calculations.
>
>
>
> Similarly, the calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in accordance
> with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of any stove test to see).
>
>
>
> The ratings provided by LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual
> performance on the WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I have
> no need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the cooking cycle
> or the calculations OD the WBT.
>
>
>
> I do know that both those labs report using IWA metrics without any
> caution that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered is of
> questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer of the information is
> left with the impression that the numbers are meaningful which they may not
> be. To me that is at least, deceptive because both labs ae aware of the
> controversy and implications for the product ratings.
>
>
>
> It is telling that students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in view
> of the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed.
>
>
>
> The WBT should be eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable in
> the strictest sense of the word.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
> Xavier,
>
>
>
> I am surprised to read that you don’t know whether you disagree with the
> sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the water boiling portion
> of the test. I did not specify Aprovecho’s equipment in my question. I
> tested the same stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence Berkley National
> Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very clean stove. Does the
> disagreement include Lawrence Berkley National Lab’s sensors, computer
> graphs, and filters along with the boiling water portion of the test? What
> exactly do those who disagree with the WBT, disagree with, just the water
> boiling portion of the test or the overall test? Is the Controlled Cooking
> portion of the test also included in this disagreement?
>
>
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM
> *To: *'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re:
> Chinaandcookstoves]
>
>
>
> Dear Kirk,
>
>
>
> *“Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along
> with the boiling water?“*
>
> I don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the measurements
> from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.
>
> Other than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at Prakti, and I
> believe there are other cases where it happened.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> *De :* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *De la part de* Kirk H.
> *Envoyé :* samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55
> *À :* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Objet :* Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China
> andcookstoves]
>
>
>
> I have a question.
>
>
>
> When I test a stove I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along with
> the pot of water. Do you disagree with the sensors, computer graphs, and
> filters along with the boiling water? The water boiling portion of the
> overall test appears to attract your attention. How much of the overall
> test do you disagree with? What do you mean when you disagree with the
> WBT, are you including the sensors, computer graphs and filters?
>
>
>
> Kirk H.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0>
> for Windows 10
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171222/ca5c2455/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list