<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Crispin, and I hope a few others
will read this,<br>
<br>
First, I improperly said "solid-fuel" instead of "biomass-fuel",
so you had a basis to launch into a discussion based on coal as a
stove fuel. With coal being a fossil fuel, I was quite happy to
have left it out. I will be more careful next time.<br>
<br>
Second, you have written a wonderful rebuttal to my statements
calling for more research on methods that show promise. TLUDs are
clearly among those, but not the only ones. And the research
should also include any poorly made TLUDs so that they can be
properly exposed as not being very good. And in fact your
switch-hitting (dual mode) Vesto should also be included as a
potentially very positive contribution. Did you really want to
sabotage the call for support for R&D that could have included
the Vesto? Did you think you were being excluded? Sorry, I
thought you knew me better than that.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, your final sentence was:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Product
development funding should go where promise has been
demonstrated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
So, I guess we do agree, but the problem is defining "where
promise has been demonstrated."<br>
<br>
Let's go back nearly 10 years when I visited you twice (maybe 3
times) at your home and business in Swaziland. You operated the
Vesto for me then. That is the only time I have seen it operate
well. (We had unsuccessful attempts at Stove Camp in 2004 or
2005 at Aprovecho.) At that time you never even suggested that
the Vesto would operate in a TLUD fashion. <br>
<br>
We see now that the Vesto has been modified and improved, and so
have the TLUDs. Great. And who did that? YOU did. And __I__
did (along with others at many stages). And we paid for that
R&D ourselves. And there are very valid R&D questions
that were identified 10 and 8 and 5 and 3 years ago that still
have not been resolved. And some have been barely touched.
Imagine what could have been done if there had been some modest
support to bring together us and 5 to 10 key others with an agenda
to resolve the questions. <br>
<br>
But there is also real difference in approaches, well represented
by you and me. I (and Reed and Wendelbo and English and Larson,
and others) are committed to the "open architecture" of TLUDs.
On the other side, you are a staunch believer in holding on to
Intellectual Property rights. We ALL recognize that IP is valid
and legal and can be useful, but some of us think it gets in the
way of progress for the cookstove solutions. And so you never
wanted to "partner" with me on stove development. I would not
accept seeking proprietary rights on anything that I helped
develop. That is fine. I respect your position. And in spite
of what others are thinking as they read this, you and I are
friends and will remain so. <br>
<br>
And you are certainly not alone as an IP-favoring Stover. Just
look at the stove companies: BP, Philips, World Stove, Eco-cocina
(fan-jet stove in El Salvador) all claim patents. And Envirofit,
Burn, and many others are highly protective and/or focusing their
efforts onto highly specific stoves, yes, onto their own stoves.
Granted, that can be judged to be good business. And the
reasoning is to let the profitable businesses pay for the R&D
work for stoves. THAT is NOT very supportive for the innovative
stovers. Instead it keeps the IP people on their singular tracks.<br>
<br>
Let me tell you how many times I have been affirmatively
approached for discussions about TLUD stoves by any of those
entities that favor IP protection and business dominance.
Answer: Zero, Nil, Nada, (Sorry if I am flattering myself to
think that I just might know a little about TLUD stoves. Maybe
enough to be of interest, I hope.) But NEVER contacted, even
when I have initiated contacts, the responses have been "not of
interest at this time."<br>
<br>
Oh. But now there is some interest in micro-gasifier stoves. Big
million dollar contract to Colorado State University for modeling
of better stoves, and gasifiers are high high high on the list of
technology. I contacted CSU, congratulated them, offered
assistance from the entire network of TLUD enthusiasts with whom I
have strong contacts. So far, not a glimmer of interest by CSU to
talk to the people who have the most PRACTICAL experience with
micro-gasifier stoves. I wish them well. And my offer to assist
still is open. And I hope they are not so ticked off by this
paragraph that they reject the offer of assistance. <br>
<br>
Oh. Crispin, did CSU contact you for discussions? They should.
I hope they talk to at least one of us. And many others.<br>
<br>
There is a similarity in our situations. Both the Vesto stove and
the "Champion" TLUD stove were instrumental in getting BEIA grants
from the World Bank. THANK HEAVENS FOR THAT!! Finally there
was some support for projects with our stoves. I have not heard
much about the project with Vestos. And the project with TLUDs
has not yet released its final report.<br>
<br>
The BEIA-CREEC project in Uganda finally put natural draft TLUDs
into a project. If it had not been for that project, the Mwoto
TLUD would not exist. I was the lead technical person on the
Mwoto TLUD. That was my second paid consultancy (First was to
GERES in Cambodia for 2 weeks many years ago). And I have put
all of that (minor) money into my little business (Awamu) in
Uganda that started 3 months ago and is based on some quite
different TLUD developments. (See "Quad" stove at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a>
and/or hear my presentation at ETHOS for some details.) <br>
<br>
So NOW I get to support some Ugandan workers without the
consultancy income. Sure, I am applying for grants. But those
grants do not allow for much funds for R&D. So I am all
about business these days. Success or fold. To limp along for
very long with self-funding from my pension income is not an
option. Deep borrowing/signing on loans is not an option.
Grants or investors/partners are needed in 2013. Make it or break
it. And the R&D will just need to happen in the course of
activities. Volunteers are GREATLY appreciated. There is much
that can be done. <br>
<br>
However, I did write in my previous message that some funding for
R&D could be appropriate for TLUD technology that is open
architecture for all. We know that the GACC will not be doing
that; GACC has a clearly defined business-stimulation approach.
But there are other sources. So, Crispin, I hope that your
message has not extinguished some small interest in helping with
the R&D efforts.<br>
<br>
A positive conclusion (for anyone who has read this far): It is
my intention to stimulate and conduct one or several FOCUSED
"Gasifier Stove Camps" of 5-day duration during 2013. One could
be in Kampala, Uganda. Another could be in Tennessee at Albert
Bates' The Farm. And another might be at Aprovecho in Oregon.
And I have hopes for others in different countries. <br>
<br>
But each one depends on finding some reasonable sponsor. Wow,
would that be great. And with some support, we could try real
hard to get some of the right people together at the closest
different venues. I would love to have you, Crispin, at a
focused stove camp with an agenda of R&D topics (not just
"everyone do your own thing" at camp). <br>
<br>
So, in a few hours I start my trip to ETHOS in Seattle. Looking
forward to seeing many of you there. Sorry if I offended anyone
or stepped on some toes. No hard feelings, I hope. If you read
this far, you know that I am serious about making some progress,
and I would be delighted if anyone would like to be working
together with me (and with many others who share the dreams.)<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 1/22/2013 9:39 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:051d01cdf8b6$ac4c24a0$04e46de0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
will take this as your position:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>MAIN
POINT: This is a great example of missed opportunities
because there has never been seriously funded research on
the multitude of controllable variables in TLUD stoves!!!
We can see the possible variations. But we cannot prove
them one way or the other simply by funding them out of the
pocketbooks of Paal, Paul, Crispin and others. YEARS AGO we
should have resolved the issues of the Vesto stove being
operated as a TLUD, or as a different type of stove. The
Peko Pe features should be better understood. As should
the issues of Nurhuda's stove, and Belonio's, and Anderson's
and others. Even people who have resisted TLUD technology
for years are becoming involved and still there is nearly
zero coordination. And any financial support seems to be
by-passing the people with experience with micro-gasifiers,
and instead is seeking isolated academic modelling that (I
suspect) will take years to have academic results. So be
it, but let's also give some funds to the practitioners. <br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And
this as your call for direction of funding:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<u>With all due respect</u> for the need for proper
"technology neutral" distribution of funding, I am getting
very tired of "technology neutral" that gives equal (or
more) weight to giving money (big money) to "business-ready"
operations that can start cranking out stoves to be counted
toward the 100 million by 2020. Instead, the leading
technology for lowest emissions from solid-fuel cookstoves
is TLUD (and other micro-gasification), and it is not yet
getting BASIC support that is needed. <br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
I have a problem with the justification. I don’t see
support going for product development at all. The
University of Johannesburg commercialisation is funding
(tiny) some actual blue sky product development. Who else
is? But the statement that a TLUD is ‘the leading
technology for lowest emissions is based on what, exactly?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
lowest emissions of any stoves I have ever tested are all
coal stoves. They could have been made for burning wood
and indeed are ignited with wood, but it is important to
point out that a high carbon fuel can be burned with
extremely low gas and PM emissions. The main claim for the
cleanliness of a TLUD is that it produces very low PM
‘because it is a TLULD’ mode pyrolyser or gasifier making
char (i.e. avoiding the burning of the carbon which is
implicitly blamed for creating the PM and CO with lots of
fuel bed analysis. By that I mean the way the fuel is
broken down into combustible gases is well described.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Now
please consider a stove type which has <i>lower</i> PM
emissions and does exactly the same thing: breaking down
the fuel into gases and does a good job of burning it. Why
is your call for research into these not included? If they
are cleaner than the current crop of TLUD’s are they to be
included?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">That
is where you lose me (my support) when the claim is put
forth that there is only a TLUD which has really low
emissions. It was stated quite off-handedly a few years
ago, again at the Bangkok conference (without evidence)
and has been repeated since. It is just not true. There
are lots of clean combustors. The Austrians are doing
wonderful work on biomass burners. Further, there are
significant limitations imposed on the cook when a TLUD is
used which I won’t discuss in detail here, but the goal is
not to support a <i>device type</i> that happens to get
the combustion parameters right. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
As you know there is a divergence of opinion between those
who want to produce charcoal and those who want to cook a
meal with the fuel they have. This is no trifling matter.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
matter of refuelability is very important to users. I can
report from the field that people in a great many cases do
not like the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Having
to decide in advance of cooking how much fuel to add to
the chamber before ignition<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
being able to significantly refuel the stove while it is
running<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
having significant control over the power<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
being able to use unprocessed fuel (meaning not cut and or
chopped)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
having any smoke to flavour the food<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
having hot coals to roast food on<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
being able to turn it off<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Having
to deal with end-of-run smoky ash.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
most strongly voiced objection in Indonesia was related to
fuel preparation. As soon as a conversation started about
improved stoves people volunteered that they were not
interested in anything that required the fuel to be
chopped into little pieces. “Don’t even start with that.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So
what do we know is clean burning?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
Berkeley paper on stove comparisons (October) states that
they did not include coal stoves because, basically,
‘people should not burn coal’. In the webinar the matter
was raised and Michael gave a quite different answer. When
a second question was put forward asking for an
explanation of the response the moderator did not allow
it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
coal stoves had been included in the analysis, it would
have been perfectly obvious to anyone reading the paper
that the new ones are by far the cleanest burning in terms
of PM and CO - the things we are supposed to be minimising
– and the best ones would have been sitting on the bottom
left corner of Tier 4, more like Tier 6. Omitting them
was inexcusable. Some were TLUD’s and some were not. If
they were really worried about the CO and PM emissions
they would have included every available technology. That
means anything someone has shown to be very clean burning.
You are worried about funding for further development of a
certain type of burner – I am still trying to get the
reviews to even admit the burners <i>exist</i>! When
confronted with the reality of their extraordinarily low
emissions, they chose to invent excuses (2) not to report
them at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Surprisingly
I am not suggesting we all start building coal stoves. It
is not universally available and coal is limited. But
carbonised biomass will be with us forever and we should
know how to burn it properly. What I am pointing out is
that the cleanest burning stoves are still not reported
on, let alone investigated as to why they work so well.
What would happen if we took the lessons from the designs
and applied them to other fuels? You follow? There is
nothing magical about TLUD’s. Other combustors are just as
clean using the same fuels. Why should research not be
placed on all types of combustors?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
is an overarching concern however. When these stoves were
tested, what was the test? How do we know these results
have value if the test was meaningless, or inappropriate?
Are we drawing circles around our bullet holes saying,
this stove is ‘right on target’ after the fact? It is a
bit humiliating to stand in front of people and say,
‘These stoves were tested with a method that makes them
look good; don’t worry about the details.’ <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">People
want to see clean burning and fuel efficient stoves.
TLUD’s are largely (but not always) clean burning. Fuel
efficient? Not so much, because many of them are created
deliberately or accidentally to create char. Producing
char requires fuel beyond the needs of the cook. If the
‘test’ pretends that fuel was not consumed, then we have
drawn a circle around the TLUD stove bullet hole, again.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Product
development funding should go where promise has been
demonstrated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>