<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
(Subject line changed to reflect the actual topic.)<br>
<br>
Cecil,<br>
<br>
Your reply (below) was off to such a good start, agreeing to not
insist on the same tests to compare apples and oranges (char-making
stoves and non-char-making stoves, which might be called ash-making
stoves because that is what happens if the char is consumed and the
char's energy is released.)<br>
<br>
But then you revert back to the old arguements that rely on equating
fuel with enegy. Those arguements simply do not hold up. <br>
<br>
Analogy: If a person is thirsty but needs to know if what is in
each cup is safe to drink, the tests for a cup of Ice tea and a cup
of cold milk should be different, but should answer the necessary
questions. (But let's not now discuss tea and milk, okay?)<br>
<br>
I heard (from John Mitchel, I think) that the testing protocols are
now with some adjustments for char-producing and for ash-producing
stoves. If I understood him correctly, this is in the protocols
that are moving forward. John will be at ETHOS and he (and Ranyee
and others) can verify this aspect.<br>
<br>
I hope that we can soon stop using "char issues" to condemn the WBT.<br>
<br>
**********************<br>
ON THE OTHER HAND, Concerning OTHER issues about the WBT, those
should be addressed also. And regarding that, Xavier message
(below Cecil's) raises important questions. For them, I have not
heard complete answers yet.<br>
<br>
Xavier wrote: (anyone wanting more info should read his full
message with a reprinted abstract of serious studies.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ul>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">do you contest the role of thermodynamic
uncertainties (viz. variable steam production and
boiling point determination) on results repeatability</span></span>?
Can you ensure there are no uncertainties? Of if there are,
can you ensure they have no effect on results repeatability?
How?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">do you have an answer to the questions
about the rationale of some calculations</span></span>
raised by Zhang et al.?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black">do you support the statistical
approach recommended by this standardised
laboratory-based test to evaluate, communicate and
compare performances and emissions of tested stoves,
i.e. using the arithmetic average of three replicate
tests? How do you guarantee this statistical approach
ensure good comparison of stove performances?</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<span class="">I don't need to be a scientist myself, to
understand there is something wrong when I hear these
researchers sounding the alarm(s).</span></blockquote>
From the reprinted abstract, what concerns me is this:
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">At 99%
confidence level, only 15% of all the supposed ‘‘improved”
stoves emerged as real ICSs at most. When enough statistical
information is provided from WBT results, only the Stove with
fan model of cookstoves seemed to reveal real improvements with
a probability greater than 93%. </span></blockquote>
That statement lacks precision about "Stove with fan model". But
reading between the lines, I interpret that as favorable news for
TLUDs with forced air. And that will probably favorably relate to
TLUDs with natural draft WHEN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS ARE TESTED AND
COMPARED.<br>
<br>
And that same quote is UNfavorable news for most of the ICS
"improved" stoves that probably should not be getting so much
support or being counted as being progress and accomplishments. <br>
<br>
What could be useful is if FULL access to test DATA (not summaries)
could be available for analysis and even some RE-processing. The
problem with this is that testing centers do not release the data
without written permission from the maker of the stoves. I am not
sure that GACC or anyone could change that policy.<br>
<br>
You will hear more about this at different sessions at ETHOS,
including my Saturday evening presentation at ETHOS (with eventual
postings to the Stoves Listserv.) So please stay tuned!!<br>
<br>
ETHOS is this weekend. Some participants might not even see this
message (because they are in transsit, etc.)<br>
<br>
If you see bright lights in the sky this weekend, that might be from
fireworks at ETHOS!! <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>:-)</span></span><br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/27/2017 3:29 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cec1863@gmail.com">cec1863@gmail.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20170127092930.5382229.36909.32846@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Xavier,
Ron, et al:</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Your
response to Ron is formidable. To my mind, a veritable tour de
force. My pre-scientific intuition tells me that TLUD stoves
producing charcoal are a separate category of stoves which
should only be compared to other charcoal producing stoves. It's
apples and oranges, apple sauce vs OJ or AJ . We don't advance
the science of apple stoves by applying performance standards
which are uniquely appropriate to orange stoves. Or do we?
Historically the WBT emerged from Baldwin's efforts to
conceptualize and measure the efficiency of a stove in terms of
energy in and useful work outputs. The challenge here is meta
stove science which takes us to epistemology - how we know what
we claim to know. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If
Ron wants to invent and promote and measure the efficiency of
stoves producing copious amounts of biochar and Crispin wants to
measure the energy in and work outputs of stoves that make
little or no char, then we have no choice but to ask the stove
users of the world to pick the type of stove they want. The
appropriate stove test goes back to what kind of stove the
costomer wants or traditionally knows about or can be motivated
by advertisers, regulators, subsidizers, visionaries, etc to
purchase and use. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I
clever anthropologist acquaintance likes to say: "anything you
can do I can do meta". So, what is the meta between Crispin and
Ron and the GACC and Aprovecho and the many different types of
biomass combustion and work producing devices?? It is
simplifying and reasonable to begin with the cook/operator</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and
purchaser in terms of the stove work desired (cooking
experience and space heating), the preferred or available fuels,
and the customers willingness to buy or fabricate the stove. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We
stove researchers should start with these givens. Surely it is
our job to devise tests of stove performance that assess stoves
from the perspective of the primary customer's best interest and
their preferred stove functionalities. Like the old Consumer's
Digest (does it still exist?) we compare stove performance as
objectively as possible in terms of a finite number of dimension
of stove performance which customers value. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We
may even get groups of stove users to rank (prioritize)
different stove functions and also to rate stove performance
relative to a baseline traditional stove, and arrive at an
overall performance rating comparing end users perceptions and
performance scores of particular stoves that are valid and
predictive of stove buyer's choices in the market and also
predictive of their propensity to actually use a given stove
product. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If
stove scientists are constructing formula that privilage
particular stoves - char making stoves or rocket stoves - in an
effort to promote their preferred stove products, functions, and
testing protocols such actions create biases in favour of one or
another type of stove into our common and eventually universal
stove performance testing procedures. Surely it is illigitimate
and ultimately counterproductive to rewrite the input output
equation for calculating the energy efficiency of stoves in
general to accommodate the pecularities of particular stoves.
The char produced by the TLUD may have value but it is not
permissible to retroactively deduct this output energy from the
energy input into the stove! </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We
must do our best not to permit our search for objective and
universal tests of stove performance to become contaminated with
"stovangelism" where we use stoves, subsidies, climate
hysterias, and political fantasias to over power and rewrite the
priorities, values, and world views of billions of impoverished
stove users around the planet. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It
is fine to emphasize the potential benefits of a stove that
produces buckets of charcoal for sale or other uses. It is not
fair to claim a higher efficiency for a char producing stove by
subtracting the energy value of the char from the
denominator....because it takes every bit of the original input
to produce the char and also do the cooking and heating. The
input of fuelwood does not shrink because some of it turns into
charcoal that may or not be useful and valued output. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Surely
we can discover meta testing procedures and inclusive formats
for reporting fairly on the strengths of different types of
stoves. Nikhil has been calling for the stover of the world to
unite and create a common technical language of agreed upon
terms , metrics, and testing protocols. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I
recommend that the exponents of particular stoves and testing
protocols huddle together and describe how different types of
stoves are to be tested in all dimensions of stove performance
in the lab and in the field. Once we have the TLUD, rocket,
liquid fuel, coal fuel, etc stove test protocols, formulas, and
technical terms available we will look for and find a unifying
language of terms and operational tests.</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">That's
what I want!</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cecil
the Cook</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br
style="display:initial">
</div>
<div style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro',
sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align:
initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.</div>
<table style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="font-size: initial; text-align:
initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div style="border-style: solid none none;
border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width:
1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB
Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size: 10pt;">
<div><b>From: </b>Xavier Brandao</div>
<div><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:38 PM</div>
<div><b>To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking stoves;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:adam@instove.org">adam@instove.org</a></div>
<div><b>Reply To: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</div>
<div><b>Cc: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ederby@winrock.org">ederby@winrock.org</a></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2017 agenda and
logistics</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Ron,<br>
<br>
There are a lot of points of discussion.<br>
Some of the questions are also addressed to me, forgive me and
let me know if I don't answer all the questions you had for
me.<br>
<br>
<div class=""><i><font color="#3366ff">Can you (anyone) report
on how well the WBT has supported your own internal
testing. Can you think of any approach better than
heating/boiling water to come up with fuel consumption
comparisons between stoves?</font></i></div>
The Heterogeneous Testing Protocol. From our testing team at
Prakti, it is a flexible protocol, easy to use and it can
perform any cooking task.<br>
<br>
<b class=""><i>I would also note that if the three (?) tests
are very different, this could indicate a problem with the
stove - not the test or testers.</i><br>
</b><span class="">I don't see how a stove model who seem to
be mass-produced, each unit being exactly the same, can give
3 very different test results.</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class="">See the picture here:</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.primestoves.com/img/manufacturing/small-03.jpg">www.primestoves.com/img/manufacturing/small-03.jpg</a><br>
</span><br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><b
class="">[RWL: Xavier seems unconcerned about the main
issue (the “denominator equation”) separating Crispin and
myself - and his reason for unhappiness there is still a
mystery. I still do not understand any detail of Xavier’s
concerns - and have earlier responded on each of about 7
cites he sent me.<br>
</b><span class="">I am not unconcerned. As I said, I think
the denominator equation is an important question, and it is
good that you are discussing it with Crispin. There is
progress, I believe, in the discussion.<br>
Since I am not a scientist, there is not much I can do or
bring to that discussion. There are other important
questions being discussed on this list, about health impact,
fuels, TLUDs, and many other subjects. I am happy to see
them take place, but I cannot contribute much.<br>
Now, do I think the various issues with the WBT are far more
important then the denominator equation question? Yes I do.<br>
On the topic of whether or not we should keep the WBT,
knowing of all these issues, I believe I can contribute.
Because this discussion is important to project
implementers, business managers, decision-makers. People
like Vahid and Camilla depend directly on the testing
protocols in place to run their business successfully.<br>
<br>
</span><b class="">I still do not understand any detail of
Xavier’s concerns<br>
</b><span class="">I thought I was clear, but maybe I didn't
express myself very clearly.</span><b class=""><br>
</b><span class="">To me, it is very simple.<br>
There is a growing number of practitioners complaining about
the variability with WBT results.<br>
There is a growing number of studies pointing at intrinsic
flaws inside the WBT protocols, both on metrics and
repeatability. The studies tell that it is impossible to
know really how a stove performs, because of the margin of
error.<br>
When I make a stove, I want to know if it is performant. I,
unfortunately, have to test it for that. A testing protocol
which results are as uncertain as the lottery is of no use
to me.<br>
How could I not be concerned?<br>
<br>
This, below, this is what concerns me:<br>
</span><span class="">Long version:</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class="">" <span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman"; color:black">However, different authors have
been raising doubts about the consistency of WBT results,
focusing in particular on three issues: (i) L’Orange et
al. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0,
128, 174);">[6] </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">highlighted the role of thermodynamic
uncertainties (viz. variable steam production and boiling
point determination) on results repeatability; (ii) Zhang
et al. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0,
128, 174);">[7] </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">raised questions about the rationale of
some calculations and about metrics terminology; (iii)
finally, Wang et al. </span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:#0080AE">[8] </span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black">criticised the statistical
approach recommended by this standardised laboratory-based
test to evaluate, communicate and compare performances and
emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the arithmetic
average of three replicate tests."<o:p></o:p></span> </span><br>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black;"><o:p>"</o:p></span><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">The results suggest how considering
only the mean values of the outputs of the WBT and
neglecting intrinsic uncertainties of the results may lead
to make large errors and misinterpretations regarding the
ICSs’ performance. Indeed, for all the three Classes
analysed, at 90% degree of confidence, the percentage of
‘‘improved” stoves obtained by considering the mean values
of the WBT is among 3 and 6 times higher than the percentage
resulted from this analysis at least. At 99% confidence
level, only 15% of all the supposed ‘‘improved” stoves
emerged as real ICSs at most. When enough statistical
information is provided from WBT results, only the Stove
with fan model of cookstoves seemed to reveal real
improvements with a probability greater than 93%. This work
shows how neglecting the epistemic statistical uncertainties
originated from WBTs – as done by a large portion of the
literature, which reports results from few lab-tests
replicates without sufficient statistical information –
might lead to misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’
performance, with potential negative impact on
beneficiaries."</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">The short version is enough to
feel very concerned: "</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">This work shows how neglecting
the epistemic statistical uncertainties originated from
WBTs – as done by a large portion of the literature, which
reports results from few lab-tests replicates without
sufficient statistical information – might lead to
misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’ performance, with
potential negative impact on beneficiaries.</span>"<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span><span class="">I
haven't seen your answer to the critiques raised by the
studies.</span><br>
<span class=""></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;">Ron, maybe you are able to answer the
many questions all these authors are raising in their
researches, so I would like to re-ask you these
questions:</span></span></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;
color: black;"></span></span></span>
<ul>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size:
12pt; color: black;">do you contest the role of
thermodynamic uncertainties (viz. variable steam
production and boiling point determination) on
results repeatability</span></span>? Can you ensure
there are no uncertainties? Of if there are, can you
ensure they have no effect on results repeatability?
How?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span style="font-size:
12pt; color: black;">do you have an answer to the
questions about the rationale of some calculations</span></span>
raised by Zhang et al.?</span></li>
<li><span class=""><span class=""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black">do you support the
statistical approach recommended by this
standardised laboratory-based test to evaluate,
communicate and compare performances and emissions
of tested stoves, i.e. using the arithmetic average
of three replicate tests? How do you guarantee this
statistical approach ensure good comparison of stove
performances?</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<span class="">I don't need to be a scientist myself, to
understand there is something wrong when I hear these
researchers sounding the alarm(s).</span><br>
<span class="">When you are an administrator running a
hospital, and both researchers and patients tell you that
one drug is harmful, and you hear nothing from the
supporters of that drug, I believe your role is to listen to
the alarms and stop distributing the drug. You don't need to
become a chemist yourself, get a PhD and understand
everything about the inner workings of the drug to make a
decision.</span><br>
<span class="">This is the precautionary principle.</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class=""><span class="">The GACC
is the closest we have from an administrator.</span></span><br>
<span class=""><span class=""></span>There's a song which
says: "inaction is a weapon of mass destruction".</span><br>
<span class=""></span><br>
<span class="">Best,</span><br>
<span class=""></span><span class=""><br>
Xavier<br>
</span></div>
<br>
<!--end of _originalContent --></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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>