<div dir="ltr">Dear All,<div><br></div><div>From my personal point of view, charcoal should be calculated in lab test because charcoal do contain some energy value that is usable.</div><div><br></div><div>In practice, for charcoal making stove, users can use charcoal in 2 ways. </div><div>1- they can stop the stove and save charcoal for next time use. </div><div>2- they can leave the charcoal burning (most of people in Vietnam using this way). That charcoal will produce hit enough to cook, simmering food for some more time (can be equal time to the burning with flame, depending on stove design/fuel use), very useful for several type of food that need some slow cook or just keeping warm. If we do CCT, PKT test, cooks will use the charcoal this way and it will be calculated in the test result, so if we leave out the charcoal in lab tests, it would miss something and create miss leading result when compare lab test vs CCT, KPT.</div><div><br></div><div>Anh</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Stovers,<br>
<br>
I highly agree with what Crispin and Xavier are intending to do.
Their method of compaisons (the spreadsheets) needs to be very
clearly explained so that others can see what are the differences
and then clearly see what are the concequences. Will this be
"operational" in time to have some results to be discussed at ETHOS?<br>
<br>
I suspect that INTERPRETATION of the results might still be
different. For example, how charcoal (a byproduct, if any) is
acknowledged (or omitted) needs to be clearly stated.<br>
<br>
At ETHOS this month I will present some quantitative (financial)
results about charcoal from some TLUD stoves in India. The results
are quite favorable and will give one perspective on the value of
produced charcoal, and that can be compared with the value of the
wood fuel that did not get burned to do the residential cooking.<br>
<br>
And then there is the case of when pellet fuel is made from either
agro-refuse (like corn/maize cobs) or from non-wood energy crops
(grown to be fuel), IN CONTRAST TO WOOD FUEL that impacts forests
that are either sustainable or forest-depleting. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-cite-prefix">On 1/10/2018 10:56 AM,
<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com" target="_blank">tmiles@trmiles.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-3801743589926654748WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to Crispin and Xavier for working up
a spreadsheet comparing results from the three methods.
Hopefully that will show the strengths and weaknesses of each
of them. Repeatability within a reasonable range is clearly
important. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tom <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Stoves
[<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.<wbr>bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Kirk H.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] WBT disagrements<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ron,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, there was no discussion on this topic.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk H.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986" target="_blank">Mail</a> for Windows 10<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">Ronal W. Larson</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:19 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">Discussion of biomass</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] WBT disagrements<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk: cc list<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-tab-span">
</span>Thanks for hanging in there.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-tab-span">
</span>I wonder if, in your off-list dialogs with Crispin
and Xavier, you could determine how they would go about
utilizing your own work in charcoal-making stoves - in the
Tier ranking system. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-tab-span">
</span>The WBT methodology coming out of the ISO-285
activities (in WG2 and many other methodologies) supports
what I have termed the “denominator equation” e3=e1/(1-e2).
e3 (to be used in the Tier rankings) can also be written as
e3=e1/(e1+i) = 1/(1+i/e1). This, since e1+ e2 + i = 1
(where i is the inefficiency). Note no negative sign in
the denominator, when written this way.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-tab-span">
</span>It seems they want to treat all char as a waste
material (become part of the inefficiency term i); e2
should apparently always be zero in their thinking. Did you
learn anything on this point?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ron<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jan 9, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Kirk H.
<<a href="mailto:gkharris316@comcast.net" target="_blank">gkharris316@comcast.net</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Crispin,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I think
your question was appropriate and the answers were
hopefully helpful.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, you don’t deserve credit for
being helpful. I asked my question and instead of
answering it you projected your agenda into me and
proceeded to answer your own projections, not my
question. Without an answer from you I had to make a
guess. You didn’t like my guess and became angry and
in that anger actually gave me a partial answer. You
proceeded to push your agenda using me as a pawn, but
not fully answering my question. I had to fight tooth
and nail with you and Xavier to get tid-bits of
information. Finally I had enough tid-bits of
information to assemble a coherent answer. The credit
is mine for fighting for an answer.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk H.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">Mail</span></a><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span>for Windows 10<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott</span></a><br>
<b>Sent:<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Tuesday,
January 9, 2018 2:13 AM<br>
<b>To:<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">Kirk
H.</span></a>;<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">Discussion
of biomass cooking stoves</span></a><br>
<b>Subject:<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Re:
[Stoves] WBT disagrements<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Dear Kirk</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">I think your question was
appropriate and the answers were hopefully
helpful. There are many lab based systems of
measurement and sometimes only a few measurements
are necessary to make great progress in improving
an existing product. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Something that can be
separated is this: Aprovecho is not 'the WBT'.
What they do and how they do it is not dependent
on using the WBT which is merely a fixed test
sequence with a set of measurements and
calculations. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Philip's comment about the
WBT telling you whether or not the stove is
improved is most pertinent. If the test didn't
tell you how it performed the first time, getting
a different wrong answer later may, or may not, be
helpful. This is the crux of the problem. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Tuning a stove requires
making refined measurements, not generalizations.
A series of small, say, 3% improvements can result
in a 12-15% improvement in fuel consumption or
power change time, or turn down ratio. If the test
cannot reliably tell you the change for better or
worse is 1% vs 4%, the results are guiding you by
chance. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">A very carefully done
experiment must, not should, deliver reproducible
results. Prof Lloyd has I think been the most
specific on this point, much more than most
commenters. As an experimentalist not familiar
with small stoves, he was expecting that stove
performance tests would deliver the same sort of
replicability as other physics experiments. The
WBT doesn't do that because of the conceptual
errors embedded in what it measures, when, and how
it calculates the outputs. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">On the face of it, why
should the calculations make a result variable?
Dean once posted here that if there is a mistake
that is applied to every test, then it is not
important. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">The difficulty is that the
mistakes manifest errors unequally in different
stove types, additional to the variability created
by conceptual errors. Prof Lloyd was forced to
abandon the WBT in favour of a method without
those errors in order to continue his work. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Thank you for participating
offlist in the discussions. Xavier are I are
discussing the preparation of a spreadsheet with a
number of tabs, one each for different versions of
the WBT and CCT. Putting in the lab info from a
test will create copies of the test on each tab
with the different calculations so the outputs can
be compared. I think we will be able to find 12
versions of the calculations, maybe 15.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">We can also prepare one tab
without the errors. This will be the formulas to
be applied that are developed from first
principles as per the HTP/CSI where the requested
metric is calculated from only the necessary
measurements made to achieve it. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Given the limitation of the
test sequence itself,, high, high, low power, it
would give 'an answer' that could be used to
compare the performance of two slightly different
versions of a stove, or different fuels, pots,
ambient temperature and so on. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">In South Africa, any
kerosene stove tested in Johannesburg or similar
altitude must also have an emissions test
conducted at a coastal location. Similarly in
reverse. The performance on such a pair of tests
must be highly reproducible.<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Such a comparison sheet can
be very helpful for convincing the casual user
that only the corrected version should be relied
upon. Failing that, we must retire, as there are
always going to be those who will not make the
effort to understand the technicalities of the
field in which they choose to dabble.<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">After that comes the issue
of contextuality. If the WBT with 'standard wood'
is used to develop a stove that will be used to
simmer soup burning dung, there is no hope. It
would be like perfecting a gasoline engine for 89
octane fuel then operating it with diesel oil. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">All stoves are used in some
context so the assessment will be most relevant,
even for internal metrics for sub-systems, if the
test conditions are relevant to the expected
pattern of use. The WBT is advertised as a
'cooking simulation'. That's OK. Pick and report. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Regards </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Crispin </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I recently asked a question
about whether the disagreement with the WBT
included the sensors, filters and computer
graphing as well as the water boiling portion of
the overall test. I have received several
responses from Crispin and Xavier (some off
list). From all that was said by them I have
assembled an answer: The sensors, filters and
computer read-outs are part of the WBT, but not
part of the disagreement with the WBT. So this
disagreement is with a portion of the WBT test,
not all of it. Also, I believe that Crispin has a
second disagreement that questions whether some
sensors and setups are able to provide accurate
read-outs. I believe that this is a legitimate
concern for scientific study, however I also
believe in different standards for different
purposes. Perfection is not always needed.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is an acceptable answer
for me. It is not pro or con to the WBT or any
protocol. My question was intentionally neutral.
I just wanted to know the extent of the
disagreement. <span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My position on the WBT remains
neutral. I use it because it is available for me
in a lab, whereas the other protocols are not.
The WBT does very well for what I need. It tells
me if a change in the stove is helpful or not.
Whether or not it is perfect science is not
important for my interests. <span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that Aprovecho (ARC)
plays an important part for wood stove development
and education and I remain a supporter. <span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk H.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from<span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cae298e4088bd4d17bcf608d5570c4bc2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636510632671079450&sdata=sRvB55V8H7%2BEg%2Ble5sqvvCUuMYdSNAqb9HGdcp%2FP9yM%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">Mail</span></a><span class="m_-3801743589926654748apple-converted-space"> </span>for
Windows 10<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br>
</span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>lists.bioenergylists.org</span></a><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information
see our web site:<br>
</span><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3801743589926654748mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="m_-3801743589926654748moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>