[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 85, Issue 31
Norman Baker
ntbakerphd at gmail.com
Wed Sep 27 13:24:49 CDT 2017
Jock;
Can you send or post pictures of your model R TLUD? Paul Taylor and I are
working on a large 55 gallon TLUD and we are on version 16 and possibly 17
(if my experiments work as hoped). We should talk.
Norm
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:00 AM, <stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org>
wrote:
> 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. Update to the KG4.0 and MN4.1 (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> 2. Re: Searching for a recent email (Andrew Heggie)
> 3. Re: stoves and credits again (Ronal W. Larson)
> 4. Model R TLUD update (Jock Gill)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:09:55 +0000
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: "'Stoves (stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org)'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Update to the KG4.0 and MN4.1
> Message-ID:
> <MWHPR22MB078434857A69EFB31459B307B1780 at MWHPR22MB0784.
> namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Friends
>
> There is an update of the drawings of the Mongolian version of the KG4.0
> crossdraft coal gasifier. This model is now made in two versions: with
> refractory ceramics made from bricks (KG) and with plastic refractory
> materials based on a high alumina bonded with aluminum dihydrogen phosphate
> (MN).
>
> The link to the drawings is new because the Mongolian folder name has been
> changed to reflect the update to v.1.02.
>
> You will see some drawings are unchanged with the name format MN4.1.01.xx
> and others with the format MN4.1.02.xx. There is only one version for each
> "xx" so they form a complete set if you take everything in that folder. The
> folder is here<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stoves/
> Mongolia/MN4.1.02/>.
>
> There an instruction manual for producers being finalised now in Bishkek,
> which will be for the brick version. I will put it there when it has been
> approved. Dimensionally they are identical.
>
> The principle difference between the earlier version and the one made by
> Altanzul in UB is that the back wall of the metal surround that holds the
> combustion chamber and hopper is put in last, not first. The reason is that
> the space is difficult to fill exactly, so the refractory is put in first,
> pushed to the front, hard, and the back wall welded into place. That
> ensures a perfect fit each time front-to-back.
>
> The performance is statistically indistinguishable from the TJ4.0 tested
> by Altanzul in 2016-7 (0.4 mg/MJNET). The PM2.5 numbers are under 3
> mg/MJNET for the brick version using a culturally relevant testing sequence
> for Kyrgyzstan. I expect to hear the test result from UB in the coming
> days. It might be slightly better - we will see. They will apply the
> Mongolian national standard test sequence.
>
> [cid:image002.jpg at 01D33725.1DDE4560]
> KG4 with a 6mm top plate.
>
> [cid:image006.jpg at 01D33725.1DDE4560]
> Altanzul holds a piece of the high density plastic refractory material and
> Amber holds a competing clay material based on a high alumina and high
> flint material discovered in the South Gobi Desert.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: winmail.dat
> Type: application/ms-tnef
> Size: 71085 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/c77d35f2/attachment-0001.bin>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:36:52 +0100
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Searching for a recent email
> Message-ID:
> <CAPSaZeZmsduG0EV-nDaZf20wqxzF6M7Hz6PRRm40YY=Xp_
> -RWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Paul
>
> Did Nikhil's post answer your question, I got no response to a personal
> e-mail?
>
> Andrew
>
> On 22 September 2017 at 15:53, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > Mainly to Andrew, but others might help.
> >
> > I am trying to fine a recent email that I am sure came via the Stoves
> > Listserv. It had a linke to an article about words from the lady who
> heads
> > the Sustainable Energy For All organization. And she was commenting
> about
> > stoves and clean fuels.
> >
> > ALSO, I thought a quite short message that related to that (above) came
> from
> > Andrew with a one sentence statement about what the Stoves Listserv is
> all
> > about.
> >
> > I looked but could not find either of the above. Thanks for any
> > assistance.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> > Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> > Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> > Website: www.drtlud.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 07:57:16 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Philip
> Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
> Message-ID: <BBEB27BE-D839-412E-AA63-EC13224E875B at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Lloyd and List: cc Drs Anderson and Bond
>
> I I find nothing wrong with the arithmetic here. But I find the
> methodology and conclusion wrong.
>
> 2. Re methodology for TLUDs, it is generally not possible to do what Dr.
> Lloyd asserts - testing a stove alternatively back forth with and without
> char-making. The equations are designed to predict stove efficiency when
> it can?t be measured. There may be stoves that can do what he asserts, but
> I don?t know of any. Doing that testing will be a big help in this
> ?equation debate?. The intent of the arithmetic in his second paragraph
> is to come up with a thermal efficiency number that allows comparison with
> stoves that only inefficiently make char. One key purpose of that
> comparison is for using the existing Tier system. This computation however
> should have nothing to do with the utility of a Tier system; that is a
> different topic. The issue here is one of accuracy of the computation.
>
> 3. Dr. Lloyd?s key assumption in ?case 2? (not a measurement) below was
> for 29% char making. If that number had instead been 27%, he would have
> achieved the 30% of ?case 1? almost exactly. A 2 % difference in one
> place leads to a 2.1% difference in another. To encourage others to get
> into this, I intentionally do not show all the intermediate steps, but I
> am sure Philip will tell us if this is so.
>
> 4. In the perfectly valid 2nd case, the calculated final 32.1% stove
> thermal efficiency would be the logical value to insert in Tier comparisons
> - not 30%. To repeat - the methodology that Dr. Lloyd correctly employs is
> directional - it has always been used to predict what you can?t measure.
> If you can measure the 30% you have no need for this equation.
>
> 5. As to Dr. Lloyd?s ?no benefit? conclusion, I fail to see how any of
> the calculations allows that. From the standpoint of the person wanting
> charcoal, it is certainly preferable to have the world believe 32.1% rather
> than the arbitrary 30% for stove thermal efficiency.
>
> 6. I believe this answers Paul Anderson?s query also below.
>
> 7. I am working on a more general approach to this which can remove the
> objections of a negative sign in the denominator. This to answer Professor
> Bond?s concerns. It will be based on the observation that the
> objectionable (1-e2) is the same as (e1+io). And one can alternatively
> argue all this with inverting the basis equation to read e1/e3 = 1-e2 =
> e1+io.
>
> 8. Re the conversation with Professor Bond, this is to add that the ISO
> approach also has a document on Tiers - my main concern in this
> discussion. My promised material in #7 will cover that.
>
> 9. I am also promising a response to Crispin?s last message to me - where
> one part shows he is not understanding this important part of the
> ?denominator equation?.
>
>
> Anyone see anything wrong in the above? More coming.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2017, at 3:29 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > I carried out a thought experiment.
> >
> > In case 1, a cookstove burning wood boiled 5 litres of water at an
> energy efficiency of 30%. The useful energy provided was 5*4.186*(100-15)
> = 1779kJ. This required 5*4.186*(100-15)/0.3 = 5930kJ. If the as-fired
> wood had a LHV of 15MJ/kg, it would have needed 5930/15000 = 0.395kg wood
> >
> > In case 2, the same stove was operated to produce charcoal while also
> boiling 5litres of water. More wood would be needed, because not all the
> wood would be combusted ? some would be left as char. If you fed 0.395kg
> wood to be turned into char at 29% efficiency, and the char had an LHV of
> 28MJ/kg, then the char would have an energy of 0.395*28000*0.29=3163kJ. The
> wood from which it was prepared had an energy content of 5930kJ, which was
> what was needed to boil the water in the absence of char production. So
> 5930-3163 = 2768kJ of additional energy* would be needed to boil the water
> if there was char production. At 15MJ/kg, this is 2768/15000 = 0.185kg
> extra wood, or an increase of 47% in the wood supply. The total energy
> supplied would then be 5930+2768 = 8698kJ. The energy efficiency of
> cooking would therefore fall to 1779/8698*100 = 20.5%, while the efficiency
> of char production would have been 3163/8698*100 = 36.4%. The system
> efficiency would have been 20.5+36.4 = 56.9%
> >
> > If you used the WBT formula, the efficiency of boiling with char
> production would have been 1779/(8968-3163)*100 = 32.1%. Given the
> measurement errors inherent in the WBT method, this would have been
> statistically indistinguishable from the efficiency with no char production
> ? i.e. it would have shown no benefit to char production.
> >
> > Prof Philip Lloyd
> > Energy Institute, CPUT
> > PO Box 1906
> > Bellville 7535
> > Tel 021 959 4323
> > Cell 083 441 5247
> > PA Nadia 021 959 4330
> >
> > *This assumes that there is no endotherm in the pyrolysis of wood in the
> presence of air, and that all the pyrolysis products except the char burn
> to provide heat. There is evidence in the literature of no endotherm in the
> presence of air.
> >
> > From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:
> stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson
> > Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 11:27 PM
> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > Cc: ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>; Andrew Heggie;
> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
> >
> > Philip, Tom and all,
> >
> > Philip is mostly correct. Actually wood takes up (has) too much
> WEIGHT. Wood has 3 times (or more, if the char is poorly made) the ENERGY
> value of charcoal that could come from that char. But it has about 5
> times the DRY weight of the char, plus there can be 20 to 50% moisture
> content to make the wood even heavier.
> >
> > And the charcoal has almost double (30 vs. 16) the energy content by
> weight, but char is so much lighter per unit of volume. So the trucks are
> buldging upward and sideways with the sacks of charcoal strapped to them.
> Weight of charcoal is not a problem for most transport.
> >
> > Apart from the transportation issue, I believe that the appeal of
> charcoal is that it does not smoke (not much). CO is invisible and
> deadly, but the people learn to cook on the balcony or keep some air
> flowing. And it does not turn the bottom of the pots black.
> >
> > Charcoal is an attractive fuel. Too bad it is made by processes that
> throw away 2/3rds of the energy. (So, let's promote TLUD stroves and
> collect the char for sale to the urban folks. Only one third of the
> cutting of wood/forest.)
> >
> > So, if 100,000 households (mainly in rural or peri-urban areas) would
> use TLUDs, the resultant char would equal to the energy needed for an
> approximately equal number of households (mainly urban) that would want to
> burn charcoal.
> >
> > Now that would be FUEL efficiency measured by communities, not by single
> stoves.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> > Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> > Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> > Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> > On 9/24/2017 11:40 AM, Tom Miles wrote:
> >> That's probably why charcoal use is increasing 5% per year in SSA
> compared with wood fuel at 1% per year.
> >>
> >> T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc.
> >> tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>
> >> Sent from mobile.
> >>
> >> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:50 AM, "plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:
> plloyd at mweb.co.za>" <plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just a thought on Sub Saharan charcoal use. As Africa urbanizes, so it
> needs energy to cook. Wood takes up too much volume, and the roads are
> primitive. So it makes sense to use charcoal. A bicycle load will keep ten
> homes cooking for a week.
> >>> The use of char oal has everything to do with logistics and nothing to
> do with the environment.
> >>> Philip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
> >>> From: Nikhil Desai
> >>> To: Ron Larson
> >>> CC: Andrew Heggie ,Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ,Discussion of biomass
> cooking stoves
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ron:
> >>>
> >>> What makes you believe that users of biomass-fuelled stoves are
> predominantly growers (of biomass)?
> >>>
> >>> Saw the figures for urban charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa
> lately? Or looked at non-household cooking (in my view roughly 50% of
> cooking energy consumption worldwide)?
> >>>
> >>> Nikhil
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>> Andrew and list:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather there is
> >>>> still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning takes
> >>>> place. However it brings me to another reason I like the idea, though
> >>>> not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer being paid
> >>>> a subsidy funded by the developed world. The trouble is I have a
> >>>> parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons
> >>>> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?
> >>>
> >>> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew?s last question. I disagree with Andrew calling
> himself ?parochial? - when he supports (as do I) the ethics of ?a subsidy
> funded by the developed world?.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [RWL10: Agree totally. And I think this is what will eventually
> kill the geoengineering technology that is often placed ahead of biochar -
> BECCS. In BECCS, as with ?clean coal?, the CO2 from combustion (never
> pyrolysis) is placed, as liquid, deep underground. Major expenses needed
> to protect the world?s soil are not needed for biochar. Soil quality is
> closely linked to carbon content - and biochar does this with no penalty -
> while apparently being the cleanest and most efficient of all possible
> solid-fuel stoves.
> >>>
> >>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>
> >>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/7c1d1323/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:59:47 -0400
> From: Jock Gill <jock at jockgill.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>, Tom Miles
> <tmiles at trmiles.com>, Kelpie Wilson <kelpiew at gmail.com>,
> Hugh
> McLaughlin <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>, Erich Knight
> <erichjknight at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Stoves] Model R TLUD update
> Message-ID: <579808D4-BFB1-4DC6-9A88-C5BAC99D1A25 at jockgill.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Stovers,
>
> As Crispin suggested, I tested my model R TLUD with a 12 CM diameter disk
> suspended about 1 cm below the entry of the secondary air. This disk
> covers about 64% of the pyrolysis surface (15 cm in diameter). An
> interesting result is that this clearly creates two very distinct chambers
> in the system. One below the disk and a second between the disk the cap.
> The bottom chamber is the pyrolysis chamber. The upper chamber is
> functionally a combustion chamber. This is made clear by the fact that the
> pyrolysis in the lower chamber will NOT ignite the gases in the combustion
> chamber. These gases must be lit by a second ignition process. The
> pyrolytic gases will ?smoke? until the fuel air mix is rich enough to
> sustain combustion in the upper chamber.
>
> I am still working on an ignition system for the top chamber. The
> pyrolysis in the lower chamber is easily started with wood pellets soaked
> for 5 minutes in 90% rubbing alcohol. The cross over to combustion of the
> gases in the upper chamber happens around 10 minutes into the process. At
> this point, I carefully squirt some gelled alcohol on top of the cap. It
> immediately starts to vaporize. This creates an explosive mix in the draft
> can which is very easily lit ? but must be done from the edges to avoid a
> flash burn when the alcohol gases ignite explosively. I usually have to
> repeat this process two or three times until the fuel/secondary air mix is
> rich enough to sustain combustion. Then it is off to the races.
>
> Latest run was just over 38 minutes on 450 grams of wood pellets (my cost
> is about 12.5 cents US). Temperatures exceeding 1,200 degrees F were
> observed in the exit gases. The conversion of the wood pellets to
> charcoal was complete and the charcoal passed all of the usual tests easily.
>
>
>
> This is a 18 cm diameter stove pipe cap. It works as well or better as
> when I test with the larger 21 cm diameter cap.
>
>
>
>
> This shows the 12 cm diameter disk suspended from the smaller stove pipe
> cap. It hangs about 4 CM down from the top of the cap and rests about 1 cm
> below the entry point of the secondary air.
>
>
>
> Primary air is pretty aggressive. It had to be somewhat increased to
> adjust for the reduction in draft caused by the 12 cm disk. I expect a can
> with somewhat smaller primary air holes would also work. A key concern is
> to get the pyrolysis hot enough to completely convert all of the biomass to
> good quality carbon.
>
>
>
>
> This is the top of the reactor can. Notice the lip. It limits the
> diameter of the disk. It also prevents the gases from raising straight up
> and deflects them a bit towards the center. Note: the reactor can has an
> interior diameter of 15 cm. The disk has a diameter of 12 CM, thus the
> pyrolytic gases are forced way towards the sides of the reactor and must
> rise up thru a narrow gap, ~ 1.5 cm. This effectively creates two very
> separate chambers, one below the disk and one above. The lower chamber
> will get very little effect from secondary air. The stove pipe cap rests
> on the three angle bracket arms.
>
> It is easy to see that the pyrolysis creates the gas unevenly across the
> surface. As the point of greatest gas production moves around, it causes
> turbulence in the flow of gas up into the combustion chamber. It is quite
> interesting to watch ? if you do not burn off your eyebrows. I use a step
> ladder to get safer viewing position.
>
>
>
> The assembled model R TLUD with the smaller 18 CM diameter cap. The draft
> can on top is critical. If it is too short, the run the will go long and
> the conversion of the wood to charcoal will be incomplete.
>
>
>
> This is the larger 21 cm diameter stove pipe cap. It also works. The
> pattern and size of the exhaust holes doesn?t seem to matter too much.
> Visual evidence suggests more blue in the flame when using the smaller
> cap. As the smaller cap provides a narrower gap for the secondary air flow,
> this may allow for hotter temperatures the combustion chamber?
>
> Comments? Suggestions? I hope others will build on these ideas and take
> them further.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jock
>
> Jock Gill
> P.O. Box 3
> Peacham, VT 05862
>
> Regenerate the Commons
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: fullsizeoutput_2cab.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 80866 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0006.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_7102.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 94637 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0007.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: fullsizeoutput_2caa.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 92778 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0008.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_7105.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 82401 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0009.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_7109.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 71332 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0010.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_7104.jpeg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 74536 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0011.jpeg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 495 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/b9c6b30f/attachment-0001.asc>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 85, Issue 31
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170927/8ecb9cf4/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list