[Stoves] Gasfiers by Paul Anderson
sekiku at satconet.net
sekiku at satconet.net
Wed Nov 1 08:22:33 CST 2006
I am called Joseph Sekiku and work with a local organisation in Tanzania. I
am now on a short visit to the USA. I have had the golden opportunity of
visiting Mr. Paul Anderson in Bloomington (Illinois). He has excellent
models of gasifiers, These are fuel efficient, produce clean energy and are
scaleable. The temperatures can rise to above 400 degrees which is
difficult in many protypes.
I will experiment on such when I go back to Tanzania before end of
November. I have made a proposal to Mr. Anderson to partner with FADECO and
produce these gasifiers back home in Tanzania. Not only do these type of
gasifiers provide tremndous saving on fuel, but also improve health
conditions (as no smoke/ soot is produced). Home scale and instutitional
gasifiers are possible.
An interesting aspect is that the gasfiers can be made from recyled tins or
metal buckets. I have made a resolve to have this technology transfered
back to Tanzania. This is one living example of a project that can help
improve livelihoods in rural, porr resource ceommunities: create jobs for
artisans and iron mongers/ blacksmiths, while saving the environment.
I am looking forward to going back to Bloomington before I return to
Tanzania. However, I have made my mind to start this project as soon as I
return to Tanzania. I would invite support from interested persons on the
network to the work that Mr. Paul Anderson has done and to any new projects
like mine in Tanzania.
Joseph sekiku
Original Message:
-----------------
From: stoves-request at listserv.repp.org
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:18:02 -0600
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at listserv.repp.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at listserv.repp.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at listserv.repp.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Dung Berry Fireballs and Indian chracoal (Jeff Davis)
2. T-LUD with central core: derived from Dung Berry Fireballs
(Paul S. Anderson)
3. Re: T-LUD with central core: derived from Dung Berry
Fireballs (Richard Stanley)
4. Re: Instruments for: Stove testing (Jeff Davis)
5. Re: Particles and particle types (was Charcoal Making Stove) (AJH)
6. Re: Particles and particle types (was Charcoal Making Stove) (AJH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:47:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff0124 at velocity.net>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Dung Berry Fireballs and Indian chracoal
To: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>, "Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <28565.152.50.3.3.1162349235.squirrel at www.velocity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Dear Crispin,
Crispin wrote:
> Does it take more energy to compress light biomass into a pellet or log
> than
> it gives back in heat? I presume not. So...what is the return on energy
> investment?
We would have to know the method of pelleting. For example: the ring
pelleter people say that it only consumes 4% (if my memory is correct) of
the energy pelleted. But I look further than the electrical receptacle and
I see line, transformer, generator and prime-mover loss. My thinking is to
see how the efficiency stacks up in the field. In other words place the
prime mover and pelleter at the point of work and fuel it with your made
fuel. I gave the math (with my POOR math skills) a try, on my web page,
and I copied it below. My heat value is too high (I believe) for
switchgrass but you get the idea.
Copied from my web page:
********************************************************
I could not find the heat value for swichgrass but the above document
stated the swichgrass was made of 50% carbon, 43% oxygen and 6% hydrogen.
So in "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems" on page 13,
I found a chart of many HHV and picked something close: maple at 19.9
kJ/g. Think I should use LHV?????
switchgrass = ~19.9 kJ/g (I now think this should be lower)
hence 19900 kJ/kg
I assumed metric tons
1 ton of switchgrass = 19900kJ/kg x 1000 = 19900000kJ
Joules x (2.78 x 10-7) = kWh (Pocket Ref, Thomas J. Glover)
hence kJ x (2.78 x 10-4) = kWh
or kJ x 0.000278 = kWh
1 ton of switchgrass = 19900000 kJ x 0.000278 = 5532.2 kWh
hence switchgrass = 5532.2 kWh/ton
eff. = output / input
Let's give the ring pelleter a try.
50kWh for the pelleter (Tom Miles)
50kWh for conditioning (Tom Miles)
energy needed to ring pellet switchgrass = 100kWh
eff. = output / input
eff. = 5532.2 kWh / 100 kWh
eff. = 55.322
or
eff. = 5532%
Let's try this all over with a gasifier/engine system at combined
efficiency of 20%, powering the pelleter.
100kWh input needed
20% eff. prime mover/gasifier
20 100
---- = -------
100 x
20x = 10000
x = 500
500 kWh needed to fuel our prime mover.
eff. = output / input
eff. = 5532.2 kWh / 500 kWh
eff. = 11.0644
or
eff. = 1106%
> Next, what is the return on energy investment (or loss) making charcoal
> out
> of the boimass instead, and extruding Sarai Cooker fuel? It takes far
> less
> energy in the form of electricity, but more in the form of charred
> biomass.
> Having excess biomass and less electricity, perhaps the best solution then
> is to make charcoal with a low investment of high quality energy, rather
> than to make the same raw material into a high density, uncharred lump.
No idea what a Sarai Cooker is but when one makes charcoal you keep ABOUT
1/3 of the fuel value. But now if one uses the off gas, things look
better.
I do not believe there is a silver bullet! We need to use the correct
method for the situation.
Best regards,
Jeff
--
Jeff Davis
Some where 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:54:34 -0600
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Subject: [Stoves] T-LUD with central core: derived from Dung Berry
Fireballs
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>,
Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <20061031235434.zx5xrs0uhwww04gc at webmail2.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed"
Stovers,
Lanny's comment makes sense:
>> The central combustion [hollow vertical core surrounded by fuel in a
>> canister] seems to keep the top gasses lit. Could this be
>> the gasifier "spark plug" that is needed to keep top lit application
>> flaming when burning dificult to burn fuel?
Richard commented about
> attempting to top lite the hollow core briquette in our briquette
> gassifying experiements in south africa. Problem was that the hole was
> too inviting and it would [end] up being a toplit, bottom-burned
briquette..
>
> You are right about the need for a central air feed though. Something
> is needed to supply air up through the center at least when you are
> trying to gassify biomass to our experience.
When a T-LUD is of small diameter (such as 4 inches -- 10 cm -- as in the
Woodgas Campstove) and there is a reasonable draft of primary and secondary
air, the sustaining of the combustion is not much of a problem. But when
the
diameters are 6 inches or 8 or larger, the gases (especially if at a low
turn-down setting) can be rather wispy and/or favoring one side more than
the
others. Therefore, especially in those cases, a "flame holder" or
"spark plug"
could be of great assistance.
Based on the comments from Lanny and Richard, I offer an idea that I have
not
yet had a chance to try, but hope to do soon. It involves a central core,
but
a specific type:
1. The core must not allow fire (via falling embers, etc) to fall to
the bottom
and to cause a bottom-lit situation. Therefore, the core is mostly closed
and
rather small in diameter. I envision a hollow metal tube perhaps 1 cm in
diameter with perhaps two of 1/8th inch holes (about 3 mm) placed at 1 cm
vertical spacing. More holes can be added if needed.
2. There is a clear passage for primary air to get to the bottom of the
vertical hollow core. If there is too much passage of air, the core might
be
partially closed at the top. The tube is to end about 2 - 3 cm below
the level
of the ring of secondary air holes.
3. Initially, most of the air coming through the pipe will be primary air
to
support the top-lit pyrolysis, even if that air enters the fuel area
laterally
via the lower holes in the tube. But any excess air at the top will
essentially be secondary air providing oxygen to the combustion of those
pyrolysis gases, sustaining a flame in the center of the fuel pile. This is
the weakest spot for T-LUD combustion, even in the 4-inch fuel containers.
So
this flame will be a nice addition.
4. As the pyrolysis proceeds downward, the top of the tube will be
exposed, so
all air coming out of that end will be secondary air. This must NOT be an
excessive amount if we want to avoid a "torch effect" of a tall vertical
flame
rising substantially higher than the flames supported by the lateral
secondary
air holes in the container sides. Perhaps a "diffuser cap" to spread that
stream of air out to the sides will be necessary.
5. Let's consider the case of when the pyrolysis is about half completed.
a. Any air movement in the lowest holes on the tube is of little
consequence
because other primary air is entering at the bottom.
b. Holes that are in the zone of flaming pyrolysis are either sending
extra
air (with O2) into contact with the hot fuel and hot char (good for
keeping the
center area hot) or there could be some pyrolysis gases coming into the
tube via
those holes, resulting in a flaming combustion of those gases with the
rising
air. This also is good because it is acting like secondary air that is
introduced into the heart of the mass of fuel to burn some gases, but
constrained inside the hollow tube. This indeed could be the
flame-holder/spark-plug.
c. Whether the air is going outward through the holes in the tube or if
gases are going inward into the tube via those holes will be influenced by
the
amount of pressure (forced-air T-LUD) of the primary air AND by the
constriction or openness of the top of the tube. Too open at the top means
fast moving air with gases being sucked into the tube. Too closed at the
top
means only providing air with O2 outward in to the four main levels (bottom
with raw fuel, lower middle with flaming pyrolysis, upper middle with
char, and
top with combustoin of pyrolysis gases in the open space because the
fuel level
has shrunk downwards.
This should work. Needs lots of experimentation. But success could mean
the
ability to have much larger diameters of T-LUD gasifiers because there
could be
several of these vertical hollow cores in one fuel container (perhaps 60
centimeters diameter??).
Note: We already know that large diameter T-LUD will function and create
substantial quantities of pyrolysis gases. But the combustors (the burner
heads) to handle such quantities are not well developed.
Although I like the above concept, I conclude by saying that there might be
better and easier ways of sustaining the fire and/or other ways to get
secondary air into the center of the gases (or getting the gases from the
center out to the mixing areas with the secondary gases)
Paul
--
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
Telephone: USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
Internet site: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:19:06 -0800
From: Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] T-LUD with central core: derived from Dung Berry
Fireballs
To: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <1011a34b086523d4a478c3a0c5747758 at legacyfound.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Paul Lanny et al.,
I think the chinese briquette machine the more or less classic 6"'
diameter, multi holed cylindrical briquette is what you're after.
Richard...
PS., Paul; Hows the stepper coming along ?
On Oct 31, , at 9:54 PM, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> Stovers,
>
> Lanny's comment makes sense:
>>> The central combustion [hollow vertical core surrounded by fuel in a
>>> canister] seems to keep the top gasses lit. Could this be
>>> the gasifier "spark plug" that is needed to keep top lit application
>>> flaming when burning dificult to burn fuel?
>
> Richard commented about
>> attempting to top lite the hollow core briquette in our briquette
>> gassifying experiements in south africa. Problem was that the hole was
>> too inviting and it would [end] up being a toplit, bottom-burned
>> briquette..
>>
>> You are right about the need for a central air feed though. Something
>> is needed to supply air up through the center at least when you are
>> trying to gassify biomass to our experience.
>
> When a T-LUD is of small diameter (such as 4 inches -- 10 cm -- as in
> the
> Woodgas Campstove) and there is a reasonable draft of primary and
> secondary
> air, the sustaining of the combustion is not much of a problem. But
> when the
> diameters are 6 inches or 8 or larger, the gases (especially if at a
> low
> turn-down setting) can be rather wispy and/or favoring one side more
> than the
> others. Therefore, especially in those cases, a "flame holder" or
> "spark plug"
> could be of great assistance.
>
> Based on the comments from Lanny and Richard, I offer an idea that I
> have not
> yet had a chance to try, but hope to do soon. It involves a central
> core, but
> a specific type:
>
> 1. The core must not allow fire (via falling embers, etc) to fall to
> the bottom
> and to cause a bottom-lit situation. Therefore, the core is mostly
> closed and
> rather small in diameter. I envision a hollow metal tube perhaps 1 cm
> in
> diameter with perhaps two of 1/8th inch holes (about 3 mm) placed at 1
> cm
> vertical spacing. More holes can be added if needed.
>
> 2. There is a clear passage for primary air to get to the bottom of
> the
> vertical hollow core. If there is too much passage of air, the core
> might be
> partially closed at the top. The tube is to end about 2 - 3 cm below
> the level
> of the ring of secondary air holes.
>
> 3. Initially, most of the air coming through the pipe will be primary
> air to
> support the top-lit pyrolysis, even if that air enters the fuel area
> laterally
> via the lower holes in the tube. But any excess air at the top will
> essentially be secondary air providing oxygen to the combustion of
> those
> pyrolysis gases, sustaining a flame in the center of the fuel pile.
> This is
> the weakest spot for T-LUD combustion, even in the 4-inch fuel
> containers. So
> this flame will be a nice addition.
>
> 4. As the pyrolysis proceeds downward, the top of the tube will be
> exposed, so
> all air coming out of that end will be secondary air. This must NOT
> be an
> excessive amount if we want to avoid a "torch effect" of a tall
> vertical flame
> rising substantially higher than the flames supported by the lateral
> secondary
> air holes in the container sides. Perhaps a "diffuser cap" to spread
> that
> stream of air out to the sides will be necessary.
>
> 5. Let's consider the case of when the pyrolysis is about half
> completed.
> a. Any air movement in the lowest holes on the tube is of little
> consequence
> because other primary air is entering at the bottom.
> b. Holes that are in the zone of flaming pyrolysis are either
> sending extra
> air (with O2) into contact with the hot fuel and hot char (good for
> keeping the
> center area hot) or there could be some pyrolysis gases coming into
> the tube via
> those holes, resulting in a flaming combustion of those gases with the
> rising
> air. This also is good because it is acting like secondary air that is
> introduced into the heart of the mass of fuel to burn some gases, but
> constrained inside the hollow tube. This indeed could be the
> flame-holder/spark-plug.
> c. Whether the air is going outward through the holes in the tube
> or if
> gases are going inward into the tube via those holes will be
> influenced by the
> amount of pressure (forced-air T-LUD) of the primary air AND by the
> constriction or openness of the top of the tube. Too open at the top
> means
> fast moving air with gases being sucked into the tube. Too closed at
> the top
> means only providing air with O2 outward in to the four main levels
> (bottom
> with raw fuel, lower middle with flaming pyrolysis, upper middle with
> char, and
> top with combustoin of pyrolysis gases in the open space because the
> fuel level
> has shrunk downwards.
>
> This should work. Needs lots of experimentation. But success could
> mean the
> ability to have much larger diameters of T-LUD gasifiers because there
> could be
> several of these vertical hollow cores in one fuel container (perhaps
> 60
> centimeters diameter??).
>
> Note: We already know that large diameter T-LUD will function and
> create
> substantial quantities of pyrolysis gases. But the combustors (the
> burner
> heads) to handle such quantities are not well developed.
>
> Although I like the above concept, I conclude by saying that there
> might be
> better and easier ways of sustaining the fire and/or other ways to get
> secondary air into the center of the gases (or getting the gases from
> the
> center out to the mixing areas with the secondary gases)
>
> Paul
> --
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
> Telephone: USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
> Internet site: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
> http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 02:00:13 -0500
From: Jeff Davis <jeff0124 at velocity.net>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Instruments for: Stove testing
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <200611010200.13716.jeff0124 at velocity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear List,
For measuring the moisture of fibrous fireballs I use the forefinger and
thumb
method. One simply grasps a fibrous fireball between the thumb and
forefinger
and squeezes as hard as possible. If the fireball compresses, it's too wet.
Your grip may vary. Someday I will have to really measure the MC at this
stage of drying.
Full steam a head!
Jeff
On Saturday 28 October 2006 10:55 pm, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> Stovers,
>
> Thank you everyone for the discussion.
>
> Summary by me, plus leading to further discussions:
>
> For moisture determination:
> Looks like a scale and an oven should be used. Suggestion was for 300
> grams of
> fuel and a 1-gram-precision scale. For my quick estimates, I will stick
> with my 2-gram-precision scale from Walmart and use at least 100 grams of
> fuel.
>
> Andrew mentioned using a microwave oven. Could you or others please
> comment on
> the advantages (maybe speed?) and disadvantages (would my wife tolerate
> such usage in her kitchen microwave?).
--
Jeff Davis
Somewhere 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
http://www.velocity.net/~jeff0124
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:19:09 +0000
From: AJH <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Particles and particle types (was Charcoal
Making Stove)
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <c7vgk2l033tp87dpn755o9enlcnci96s94 at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Forwarding a bit of discussion that went off list because Tami got my
reply but the list didn't, Tami's reply to follow. AJH
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:47:45 +0000, AJH wrote:
>
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:39:43 -0600, Tami Bond wrote:
>
>>
>>> Are you confident these are always large? It's the possibilities of
>>> forming small silicacious particles that concerns me.
>>>
>>I am not confident. You're right; I think there could be silicaceous
>>particles especially from rice straw and other material with high silica
>>content. Aerosol from wood burning appears to be mostly carbon and
>>associated material, with very little silica.
>
>OK and I'm sure this is the case with small naturally aspirated
>stoves, but once air velocities increase I wonder....
>
>The thing is wood ash is still 50% silica even if this is only 1% of
>the raw wood. As you may have gathered I play with forced air burners
>and I do see fly ash blown out, even to the extent that I have
>considered making use of it with an automatic ash collection system.
>My worries are about lung disorders this may cause if they are in the
>living space as pm10 or 2.5. It took a while to find a causal link to
>asbestos and lung disease.
>>>
>>> I find that flue exit temperatures of 700C are generally high enough
>>> to get visibly clean effluent if there is enough excess air when
>>>
>>...Information like yours-- starting to get quantitative-- is very
>>useful. Now it would be good to advance with some more quantitative
>>information. 'Visibly clean' could be a lot of things.
>
>Yes just because I cannot see them doesn't mean there are few
>particulates.
>
>
>> If the particles
>>are black, you can't see them as well. If we can get little PM/CO
>>monitors, then we can do better.
>
>Even at the $1000 mark I'll not be able to afford one but follow your
>trials with interest.
>
>
>>You seem very systematic, so when you
>>say 'temps of 700 are... enough', have you investigated below and above
>>that temperature, and can share some quantitative differences, or at
>>least your observations?
>
>Recently I have been trying to burn very wet material with green
>foliage just to see what the possibilities are. I have air control
>with a centrifugal fan (12V for pumping up air beds) and I sample
>exhaust temperature just below the entry to the flue pipe. This
>material will not burn at all cleanly until some char is formed, then
>the char will provide all the heat to dry and pyrolyse the rest of the
>sample but the offgas and steam will not ignite, so essentially it
>smoulders away producing loads of whitish blue smoke, a mixture of
>sooty pics, water and tarry condensates. I can add some propane
>support fuel under the firebed. I add just the minimum amount to
>sustain a flame and a visibly clean exhaust. In the early stages the
>propane contributes a lot of the heat energy but over time I can
>reduce it and still maintain 700C (note this may well be an under read
>temperature) as measured by my digital multimeter and a K type thermo
>couple. I am investigating the poor heat feedback of the top lit
>approach with an aim to recuperate heat to make the thing self
>sustaining at high (70% mc wwb) moisture levels without support fuel.
>It's a follow up to the ideas we used in our high speed wood dryer.
>
>
>>And how did you maintain exhaust temp-- simply
>>from dilution?
>
>See above I vary both input air (by obstructing the fan inlet or
>reducing voltage) and support fuel.
>
>AJH
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:19:10 +0000
From: AJH <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Particles and particle types (was Charcoal
Making Stove)
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <igvgk2tcnaq1mn1lmer9oa439nr3kiin93 at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:58:59 -0600, Tami Bond wrote:
>Andrew, if you want to keep it on-list that's fine. I somehow thought
>you had taken it off-list. Go ahead and forward if you like
Yes Tami, it was probably my mistake, I was thinking all messages were
now going to the whole list so hadn't checked, probably because I was
replying to a message that predated the change in "reply to:" address.
>
>> The thing is wood ash is still 50% silica even if this is only 1% of
>> the raw wood. As you may have gathered I play with forced air burners
>> and I do see fly ash blown out, even to the extent that I have
>> considered making use of it with an automatic ash collection system.
>>
>I agree that it could be a concern but I think the carbon is also a
>health concern. At this point I am more concerned about reducing total
>PM mass and later we can worry about what it's made of. That may be a
>narrow view.
It's like fractals, you get drawn in to deeper levels of intricacy,
occasionally you need to draw back and see the big picture and how
insignificant the splitting of hairs may be.
>From the recent posts reporting on your work and contributions to
other lists (how many are there, I only belong to this one in this
field?) it looks like we've moved on a bit from the early days.
First we aimed for complete combustion because it was more fuel
efficient.
Then we looked at better heat transfer because it used less fuel.
Then Kirk Smith pointed out the health dangers of indoor wood smoke,
principally in relation to acute respiratory infections of infants
from particulates. Better combustion helps address this.
Now you quantify the significant contribution black particulates, some
from from cooking, could contribute to climate change. I've probably
missed how significant effect this is compared with the doubling of
CO2 concentrations since the industrial age. Again this can be
mitigated by better combustion.
I'm beginning to get the message that perhaps naturally aspirated
stoves will not reduce particulates well enough for this last effect
and that my view that the exhaust was "good enough" needs rethinking
in this light. Or am I misinterpreting the interest in the cleanliness
of forced draught stoves?
>
>>
>> In the early stages the
>> propane contributes a lot of the heat energy but over time I can
>> reduce it and still maintain 700C (note this may well be an under read
>> temperature) as measured by my digital multimeter and a K type thermo
>> couple.
>...this makes a lot of sense but it still seems there are so many
>variables changing, that the temperature might or might not be the
>determining factor.
Yes
>You could probably think of a way to isolate it, though.
Not at the moment!
AJH
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1
************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
More information about the Stoves
mailing list