<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Crispin,<br>
<br>
I agree that 30 years is a bit long!!<br>
<br>
A Google search for "From WBT to WHT" did not yield the desired
document. Can you or Philip or someone provide it from the C4D
(??) website? Is it behind a paywall?<br>
<br>
What was found was ONLY this:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div id="extabar">
<div id="topabar" style="position:relative">
<div class="ab_tnav_wrp" id="slim_appbar">
<div id="sbfrm_l">
<div id="resultStats">1 result<nobr> (0.58 seconds) </nobr></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="hd">Search Results</h2>
<div data-hveid="40"
data-ved="0ahUKEwjJgrj9p5bYAhXM4yYKHZ2XANQQFQgoKAAwAA">
<div class="rc">
<h3 class="r"><a
href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJgrj9p5bYAhXM4yYKHZ2XANQQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fpipermail%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org%2F2016-March%2F011416.html&usg=AOvVaw1JzyoTnTvPE6K8RSL2-mTK"
data-cthref="/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJgrj9p5bYAhXM4yYKHZ2XANQQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fpipermail%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org%2F2016-March%2F011416.html&usg=AOvVaw1JzyoTnTvPE6K8RSL2-mTK">[Stoves]
[stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures</a></h3>
<div class="s">
<div>
<div class="f kv _SWb" style="white-space:nowrap"><cite
class="_Rm">lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2016.../011416.html</cite></div>
<span class="st">All this is covered in the paper "<em>From
WBT to WHT</em>" at the C4D website. With respect to
the emission rate and total, unless the WHO model of
exposure is validated somehow, I can't see how it is
possible to claim that a stove 'cannot' or '<wbr>does
not' meet some indoor air exposure advisory limit
because that depends on the ...</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hey!!!! That is a link back to us!!! Crispin, Philip, and Paul
have messages there. I had forgotten about that exchange, and it
was only back in March of 2016. (and not 30 years ago!!). Some
good stuff in that exchange of messages.<br>
<br>
But still not enough progress. That raises some questions:<br>
1. It is hard to change the direction of a moving large truck (the
WBT and ISO and IWA, whatever), so it seem that China and India (and
South Africa?? and others????) have started moving in their own
trucks along somewhat parallel paths toward the same general goal of
"stove testing".<br>
<br>
2. How many people could (or have?) layed the alternatives side by
side for comparison? Tami, Crispin, Jim Jetter, some Chinese
scholars, some in Inida, etc. might do that or have done that. Not
me. and not most of us Stovers. But is it a question of having
the same DATA but palced into different formulae? Or are they not
collecting the same data either because of different instruments or
because of different proceedures? And there needs to be clear
handling of "resultant char" (maybe in TWO ways) if there is any
relevance to TLUD char-making micro-gasifier stoves.<br>
<br>
3. Has <b><i><u>anyone </u></i></b>"corrected" the mentioned LVH
error from 30 years ago? And shown its impact with test results
done 2 ways (and not just as calculations)? <br>
<br>
4. For Crispin: Is there a "Crispin-approved test" (or set of
proceedures, etc.)? Or can it not be implemented with existing
test equipment?<br>
<br>
5. Personally, I like the basis of water heating instead of water
boiling. [ And a lid on the pot and Frank's 6-Box approach are not
bad ideas). The cookstove community really does need some
improvement. <br>
<br>
Joke: Maybe it is time to throw out the baby with the [boiling]
bathwater. Maybe not a joke??? But to bathe the baby in the
future will still need some (maybe several) functional stove tests
for comparisons, otherwise the baby will start to stink. (this
analogy is not the basis for further work.) <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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 12/19/2017 6:37 AM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR22MB078410DD3EC9559BD2F46238B10F0@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)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
Kirk<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
made no mention at all of sensors or quality of equipment,
which is not specified in the WBT. I think it is not helpful
for you or Ron or anyone to impute disagreements where there
are none. The WBT is a test protocol that includes a test
method and a set of calculations. What it your point is
saying ‘it includes the CCT’ because it doesn’t exclude it?
Seriously: what is your theory of change? Shooting
messengers, even hosts of them, does not change the message.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Conceptually
there is nothing wrote with heating or boiling water. If you
want really accurate results, heat water, don’t boil it – a
point repeatedly emphasized by Prof Lloyd. There is a paper
called “From Water Boiling Test to Water Heating Test” which
explores this, (From WBT to WHT, it is called).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If
you want even more accurate assessments of your product, use
formulas that are derived from first principles. That
exercise has been done very by the SeTAR Centre and is why
the HPT was created – as a way of avoiding all the
historical errors that have accumulated in the WBT. I
mentioned the LVH error in the list of woods at the back of
the spreadsheet. That error was identified in 1987 by Sam
Baldwin, someone highly praised in certain circles. Yet
after 30 year (!) it has still not been corrected by Shell,
Berkeley, Aprovecho, Tami Bond and ETHOS nor the EPA and
GACC.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">How
long should we wait for something as simple as a an error in
the LHV from HHV calculation to be implemented? Do you agree
30 years is a bit excessive (and
<i>still</i> not corrected) is a bit excessive?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Why
should anyone take seriously the system of informal
management of its “main messenger” that cannot gets its
technical house in order? I don’t. Neither does Xavier. Not
Jiddu. Nor the Indian government nor the Chinese government
nor many others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> Stoves
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kirk H.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 19-Dec-17 12:25<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire
[Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for your
response. My question was if the disagreement was with all
parts of the test or just the water boiling part. I guess
your answer means that the disagreement is with all parts of
the test including the CO sensors, CO2 sensors, particulate
sensors and the weighing of the filters, as well as the
water boiling portion. When you say WBT, you mean all of
this, not just the water boiling in the pot. I also assume
that the CCT is included in this, since your response did
not exclude it. But since I have nothing else available for
my use I will continue as is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I was using my stove to
compare only because it and the fuel were constant between
Aprovecho and LBNL and the results were similar, not to
flaunt it as a clean stove. Sorry about the
misunderstanding.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sent from <a
href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C508e7c300ead46b2ea9808d546a9a7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492616834369342&sdata=NaGH3iFpwknHhuDte1RIdz%2FvvVkaWq9mKs1HvZl20jo%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From: </span></b><span
lang="EN-US"><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 18, 2017 7:24 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Stoves</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire
[Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Dear Kirk<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">No thinks your stove
isn't 'clean and efficient'. In truth we don't know what
the performance is because none of the WBT spreadsheets
for it are not available from Aprovecho (so you said when
I asked) and LBNL not only doesn't share the spreadsheet
behind the performance claims, they do their own
evaluation using their own method (I wrote to them and
asked specifically about your stove).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">In the real world. This
is simply unacceptable. We do not accept anyone's
performance rating for which we do know know the method
and calculations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Similarly, the
calculations done in the EPA are not entirely in
accordance with the WBT (I asked Jim Jetter for a copy of
any stove test to see). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">The ratings provided by
LBNL and EPA Lab may reflect the actual performance on the
WBT tasks quite well. No one knows for sure. As I have no
need for performance not reflecting use, I don't use the
cooking cycle or the calculations OD the WBT. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">I do know that both
those labs report using IWA metrics without any caution
that the 'fuel consumption' per litre boiled or simmered
is of questionable value, or no value at all. The consumer
of the information is left with the impression that the
numbers are meaningful which they may not be. To me that
is at least, deceptive because both labs ae aware of the
controversy and implications for the product ratings. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">It is telling that
students at Berkeley are still using the WBT3.0 in view of
the fact none of its descendants have been peer reviewed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">The WBT should be
eschewed and it's outputs ignored. It is unreliable in the
strictest sense of the word. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Regards <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Crispin <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Xavier,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am surprised to
read that you don’t know whether you disagree with the
sensors, computer graphs, and filters along with the
water boiling portion of the test. I did not specify
Aprovecho’s equipment in my question. I tested the same
stove on both Aprovecho’s and Lawrence Berkley National
Lab’s equipment, and the tests both showed a very clean
stove. Does the disagreement include Lawrence Berkley
National Lab’s sensors, computer graphs, and filters
along with the boiling water portion of the test? What
exactly do those who disagree with the WBT, disagree
with, just the water boiling portion of the test or the
overall test? Is the Controlled Cooking portion of the
test also included in this disagreement?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sent from <a
href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From: </span></b><span
lang="EN-US"><a href="mailto:xav.brandao@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Xavier Brandao</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">'Discussion of biomass
cooking stoves'</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone
Fire [Was Re: Chinaandcookstoves]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR">Dear
Kirk,</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">“Do you disagree
with the sensors, computer graphs, and filters along
with the boiling water?“</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR">I
don’t really know about that. I believe Crispin said the
measurements from Aprovecho equipment was unreliable.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR">Other
than that, the PEMS was breaking down all the time at
Prakti, and I believe there are other cases where it
happened.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR"><br>
Best,</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR">Xavier</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="FR"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="FR">De :</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="FR"> Stoves [<a
href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>De la part de</b> Kirk H.<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> samedi 16 décembre 2017 00:55<br>
<b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone
Fire [Was Re: China andcookstoves]</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have a question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When I test a stove
I see sensors, computer graphs and filters along with
the pot of water. Do you disagree with the sensors,
computer graphs, and filters along with the boiling
water? The water boiling portion of the overall test
appears to attract your attention. How much of the
overall test do you disagree with? What do you mean
when you disagree with the WBT, are you including the
sensors, computer graphs and filters?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kirk H.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sent from <a
href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=IssiZ2Ne5BQ6ELPc%2BP%2Fu0AsX3R%2BUFdeN%2F1cSK1Nbqoo%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4833in;height:.3in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Garanti
sans virus.
<a
href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca5d4400eab92416a77be08d54688eb5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636492476230709778&sdata=yKNeJQu795pKNUsA8olGw3sXiRG7PgBbZ1AgH54WZ88%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><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>