<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Crispin,<br>
<br>
A full response will be later. But here are a couple of
statements:<br>
<br>
1. Yes, there is O (oxygen) in carbohydrates. But those atoms
will not become available during drying or even during
torrification. So the retorts will need to wait until pyrolysis
temperatures are reached for any internal O to become available.<br>
<br>
2. Inside the retort, even with some ambient O2 present between the
pieces of fuel at the start, there is no combustion (chemical
combinations releasing heat from burning of O2) if there is no spark
or spontaneous combustion. And I think that if such a spark (or
flame) came into an enclosed retort chamber with a mixture of oxygen
and combustible gases, that there could be some risk of explosion.
I have not heard of that happening in Adam retorts or other retorts.<br>
<br>
Other obligations at this time prevent further comments now. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<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 12/9/2017 11:54 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR22MB0784E3241D4CCBEEF34FC61DB1360@MWHPR22MB0784.namprd22.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">></span></b>Some of what you wrote is
correct, but you go too far or leave out some important
distinctions, thereby implying that some things are equal,
that is, some are not really as worthy and distinctive as
others (Ron and Paul) have stated. <span
style="color:windowtext">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Of course
there were things left out. I am happy you included below
further refinements to the explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>1.
Pyrolysis progresses (migrates) through a piece or pile of
biomass as heat is able to penetrate. True. The Adam retort
(and other retorts) heat the biomass from many sides, but
there is no flame (actual combustion) inside. It is a stretch
of language to say that the pyrolysis in the retort
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>></span>has
an MPF [migrating pyrolytic front] proceeding in a roughly
horizontal direction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Au
contraire. The Adam Retort (which heats the biomass from
under a portion of the bottom of the pile, not multiple
sides) does indeed have a MPF and the combustion is fed by
oxidation using oxygen liberated by the thermal
decomposition of the fuel. There is no <i>added</i>
oxygen, but oxygen there definitely is. There is enough
oxygen in biomass to almost completely combust the
hydrogen content. In practise the carbon and hydrogen are
both involved in sustaining the MPF. Once the fuel is hot
enough, the MPF can move through the pile without any
additional heat required.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>Sorry,
that should say "has external heating proceeding inward from
several directions from the sides toward the center."
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is an
incorrect description of the Adam Retort. There are retorts
that function in the manner you describe. His is not one of
them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>Furthermore,
the processes in a retort are in sequential order during
numerous minutes to 1) heat virtually all of the biomass to
drive off the moisture, then 2) add more heat to virtually all
of the biomass to drive off the low-temperature volatiles to
create torrified material, and than 3) to finally get the
temperature hot enough to have actual pryrolysis, first in the
400 deg C range and then at higher temperatures if the
external heating is continued.<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is true
for some retorts, not the Adams Retort.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>In sharp contrast,
in a TLUD there is a distinctive zone of a few cm depth with
actual small amounts of combustion (of some of the initial
offgases). That zone migrates through the pile of biomass,
heating mainly by radiation a small layer of biomass below the
MPF, then with pyrolysis at a rather uniform temperature
(generally from 450 to 700 C, depending on USER CONTROLED
<span style="color:windowtext">[<i>sic</i>] </span>flow of
primary air) to create the char as the gases move upward.<span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">The same
also happens in a downdraft pyrolyser, and a bottom-pit
updraft pyrolyser such as those produce by Hirendra
Chakrabarti in India.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">The addition of a control
feature makes the process variable, however it does not
fundamentally change how the system works.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>You may choose to
try to equate the two descriptions above, but that would
diminish your credibility as a precision-seeking scientist.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">There is no
need for that kind of talk. First familiarise yourself with
the systems under discussion. Seen from the side, an Adam
Retort starts the MPF on the bottom right and it moves over
a period of about 2 hours to the top left. Prof Lloyd can
provide examples of sustained MPF’s moving horizontally
underground in the Witbank area of South Africa without any
addition of primary air. There are conditions where primary
is required, and others when it is not. Tiny stoves require
it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>And
to equate a smouldering tree stump to MPF is a stretch beyond
a stretch. Yes, there is fire there, and yes there is
pyrolysis occuring. But such comparison is akin to saying
that a ladybug and a moose are the same because both are
living creatures; and in fact both are animals. Even a
petunia and a whale are both living organisms. Scientific
comparisons need precision and detail.<span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is why
the discussion is on principles not ladybugs. A dry tree
stump can be ignited to char the stump and the roots
underground, and in the 1800’s one could buy a kit for doing
so. I was told of a different method when I was young
involving a steel pipe and kerosene. The point was to get
the stump hot enough so that the pyrolysis would continue
into the ground. The TLUD stove with an MPF is no more than
a containerised version with controllable primary air.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
2. Ron correctly pointed out that in normal operation of TLUD
stoves, there is zero O2 that gets past the MPF. That is
vastly different from having so much primary air enter (as in
Rocket stoves and other burners) that there is O2 moving
upward above the fuel (where the gases were created). <span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Ron is
correct about the O<sub>2</sub>. It is indeed different (I
don’t know about ‘vastly’ from stoves where the fuel and
flames are ‘attached’ to the solid fuel and the gases
oxidise as and when they can. it is also true (but I didn’t
expound on it) that within a fuel bed there are zones
without no available O<sub>2</sub>, just as in the zone
above the char.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>You
are saying that is good as preheated secondary O2.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Functionally
that is secondary air provided simultaneously, at least in
some cases. My definitions are general cases and can be
applied to the situation you describe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>Maybe,
but not really. It is simply inadequate combustion, with the
results of undesirable emissions.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is
speculation and cannot be true in all cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>The
excessive primary air (which you state should be secondary
air)<span style="color:windowtext">...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Which I
state has the function of providing secondary air…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>…</span>has
had a cooling effect on the raw fuel that the combustion is
trying to get hot enough to give off the pyrolytic gases.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is not
a general case. It could happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>In
other words, that secondary air that has passed over the fuel
is part of the problem, not part of a solution because it has
taken heat away from the fuel.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is not
the case. What ‘problem’? Heat passed through a metal wall
to secondary air is not ‘different heat’ from that gained by
air passing through a fuel bed, or along a hot combustion
chamber wall. There are many roads to Rome. Air that is
consumed after preheating is indifferent to hwo the heat was
gained.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>3. Tertiary air:
Defined as either 1) the needed secondary air that did not get
into the combustion zone soon enough (meaning that there was
poor stove design)
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I see this
as inaccurate on two counts: 1) the secondary air may be
added in a way that decomposes complex gases further before
final combustion, and 2) the bit about poor design is unfair
comment. There are many good designs you may not know about.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>…</span>or
2) excess air that will lower the temperature of the hot gases
(meaning that this "tertiary air" was NOT needed nor part of
the combustion process).
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Tertiary air
may be provided for a number of reasons, but normally to
provide the oxygen needed to complete combustion with a
desirable level of free O<sub>2</sub> in the gases. Under
certain circumstances, for example natural gas boilers, the
level of free O<sub>2</sub> is very low (1% by volume). To
maintain such a low level of excess air it may be necessary
to have tertiary or even more air injection points.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>Either way, the
concept of "tertiary air" is bogus in the context of cookstove
combustion.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is
opinion only, contradicted by existing technologies that use
it. One of the highest performing stick-burning stoves
available has tertiary air injection – the Rocketworks
stoves from Adrian Padt in Durban, tens of thousands of
which are sold each year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>The
objective is to get the combustion to be complete with the
proper amounts of primary and secondary air at the correct
times and places.<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is true
in some cases and not in others. Most Rocket stoves (per
Aprovecho design guides) have only a single air entrance.
The Rocketworks stoves have three distinct times and places.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>4. You wrote: <span
style="color:windowtext">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>></span>This
[MPF} process is ... how the Terra Preta soils in the Amazon
were created over 20,000 years of slash and burn
agriculture.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>The
origins of Terra Preta are still being debated by the experts
in that field, which is certainly not your claimed field of
expertise.<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I am sorry
to hear you talk about ‘fields of expertise’. Facts in
evidence speak for themselves and are not invalidated by any
messenger claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>></span>The
Amerindians cultivated land that was already productive,
they did not create it
<i>de novo</i>. Cecil confirms they farm patches of land
that are already productive, not random areas. He observed
this when he was doing PhD field research while at Harvard.
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>I
have great respect for Cecil Cook. But somehow what you have
attributed to him and his work has not reach my attention
previously.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">So what? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>And
I do not accept your statements.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I don’t
care. I cared to know, by interviewing him, how the
Amerindians farmed and what role char had in their
agriculture. I reported this previously to this list. Maybe
you forgot. It is in the archives. At the time Ron replied
that did didn’t accept the observational reports from Cecil
who lived in the jungle for 4 years learning how their
agricultural society functions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>What
happened thousands of years ago was not witnessed by Cecil.
He could only observe the current day activities on lands that
somehow became fertile.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">He reported
observations, the most important of which is that they do
not practise slash and burn farming over whole areas, but
only the fertile bits. The practice of slash and burning
creates a lot of char in the ground, something contested by
Ron at that time and diminished by your message regarding
the tree stumps burning in California. If you don’t believe
me, you can visit the area right now and witness the MPFs
moving into the ground to charcoal the root systems. A major
part of the work of firefighters is extinguishing these
MPFs. This is sufficient to convince me they exist. If they
exist, they are producing biochar in the ground.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>You
can take that topic to the Biochar Listserv, if you want to
discuss it further.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I have no
interest in discussions on another list. I receive
information from the Biochar-Ontario group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">></span>Sorry, I reject much
of what you wrote. <span style="color:windowtext">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Don’t be
sorry. Learn and be happy! We are sharing perspectives here.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>I
would not want you to be instructing people about TLUD stoves
and char making and Terra Preta.
<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">That is none
of your business over which you have no control.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">></span>IMHO,
your comments about pyrolysis in different devices reflect
poorly on your credibikity
<span style="color:windowtext">[<i>sic</i>] </span>regarding
your other strongly expressed positions, but that is a topic
for others to discuss.<span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">And I feel
sometimes you could learn a thing or two before posting
comments about other technologies. Like everyone else, I
find your contributions worthy and partially correct.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:windowtext">Perhaps there is something you
could answer: Is there something about char making that
requires or drives their proponents to make completely
unnecessary personal attacks and derisive, inaccurate
speculations about motives? Outside the agricultural sector
and the production of char-enhanced fertilisers, I find the
biochar enthusiasts as a group to be cloistered and
fanatical, frequently engaging in divisive speech about
something they have recently discovered.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I should
take a minute to compliment you, Xavier, Julien, Jonas
Haller and Dr Nurhuda for being very open to exchange with
me advice, explanations and observations without
reservations about how or where the information originates.
All of you have produced very interesting and effective
products suited to certain communities.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Best regards
for a better burn<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</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>