I really appreciate that you have an extreme amount of knowledge and are willing to share it. But, on this subject, I will say that I usually don’t give a hoot what is in the gas that I am producing. I had four years of college, but didn’t learn that “chemistry” is the study of “the periodic table”. I thought it was just about memorizing valences, and atomic wts. and on and on. So I prefer to make physical changes to my “system” and try to improve the performance of my IC engine. I don’t explain it.TomC
As a child I was given a little lightbulb shaped clear glass vacuum bottle with an internal white side/dark side spinner wheel in it. Exposed to the sun it would be photowave energy spun. Five decades later with millions of hours and billions of dollars of developments this is harness now at a 3% to 8% conversion efficiency.
Also as a child I was given a small jellyed alcohol (Sterno) powered steam engine. Never then paid attention to the efficiency. DID learn that it took fuel and water replenishing to make run. Good lesson. Took and active operator to get up running, keep up running. Better lesson.
That single pass steam “simple” was 8% efficient. 19th century tech. 20th century tech makes this as a triple compound engine 16% efficient.
Late 20th century multi documentation puts woodgas making, IC engine shaft power making systems as overall 22% efficient. FAO 72.
As an adult I bought another one of these window solar motion makers. It only works for me here in the cloud rain forest about 700 hours out of my annual north latitude 2920 “daylight” hours.
My evergreen conifer trees here been growing year around. Every year. For all of these decades. Converting cloud/sun energy. Concentrating this solar enrgy dense enough to be reasonable tech usable.
Terry direct into engine cylinder flashing to steam only worked with a huge thermal surplus.
As I lined out the engine manufactures have been step by step evoling to NOT have these in cylinder heat “wastes” surpluses for 30 years.
Lots and lots of little gains here down at the fine “devil in the details” mechanical areas too.
Piston rings and placement developments has gained ~3% heat to shaft conversion. Piston thermal controlling, skirts shapes, coatings has gained another ~3% conversion gain. Optimizing connecting rod lenths to stroke ratios has reduced piston side thrusts/heating - measurable % gain here.
And better matched the pistons up and down VARYING speed rates to better match the in-cylinder pressure rise and falling conditions. BETTER heat/pressure to shaft converting. Another ~3% gain here.
Changing to roller nosed valve followers and roller lifters on the camshaft led to an ~2% reduction in engine internal-use power consumed.
CNC very tight controlled machined surfaces then allowing going first to 5W oils - a 2% energy savings. Now 0W engine oils adding another 1% parasitic energy savings.
Past straight mechanical improvements then onto variable driven cooling fans, waterpumps, oil pumps, power steering pumps. Overrunning clutched alternators even.
In plain terms this hog is now so lean there is not the surplus heat/lard to make any decent bacon anymore; let alone any heat/fats renderings anymore.
DonM been looking back and that dedicated extra exhaust gasses power cycle engine proposal was called a five stoke.
Well . . . the manufactures like Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and GM now with thier turn-off, turn-on cylinder engines are actually without any more added mech doing this now.
They SAY in popular literature that they are selective cylinder deactivating under low power needs conditions to save fuel. True.
They SAY in tech literature they are even using their high speed electronically controlled variable valving systems to only partially exhaust the cylinder and then using the retained exhaust as a controllable EGR for the next combustion cycle. GM literature.
What they NOT saying is some are now using this controllable capability to only partially cylinder exhaust for heat farming. Retain some now cooling exhaust gases. Then on the next up stroke this retained exhaust is still hot combustion chamber reheated for another downstoke expansion power input.
Only works on their 6 and 8 multi-cylinder applications.
The misfire detection on-board systems capabilities possible since the early 1990’s are capable of detecting cylinder power contributions by crankshaft acceleration pulses.
So, somewhat like an old “hit or miss” engines they could keep up this in-cylinder exhaust gas “bouncing” heat power farming until no more detected crankshaft power contribution. They turn that cylinder back on for “normal” operation and reheating. While exhaust gas “bouncing” heat power farming a different cylinder.
This is the only way I can pencil out the efficiency gains these systems are getting. Fuel off. Spark off; you still have to drag those pistons up and down. Edit add: this pistons dragging up and down calculates to be as high as 1/4 of all internal engine power “base load” consumption.
Yes. The new auto tech IS that bloody damn good.
The price? Look at your window stickers! Look at your more and more sucked in dependencies. Dependencies for computor “scanners”, five gasses analyzers and the technicians to operate and interpret these! I was that technician.
edit su
And this is all why I insist my OWN woodgasing stay as simple as possible to match the trees that grow the actual fuel wood input.
Others may chose a much more complex way.
That is their choice.
To turn wood enegy into useable shaft poer energy certainly does not NEED to be a complex head trip.
Most anyone can make babies, raise children without having to learn and quote out mitosis and meiosis with then fears of these gone amok.
Regards to all
Steve Unruh
Edit add IC engine piston internal construction pictures to show some of the cast-in copper and alloys thermal expansion control struts. This is an old now Ford/Brazil 2300cc engine piston. 40 years old tech. Newer are much more complex and evolved forward yet. S.U.
First, thanks for the enormous laughter you gave me about explaining your “asking Steve the time joke”
Tears in my eyes, pain in the belly…
Gasfying… i second your opinion: keep it simple, it works… make it sophisticate, it also works… but just do it and enjoy…
i am a recycler and energy saver… will try to gasify anything, guess what? It works…
this year i celebrated my 40 st year of working and i am only 52. 40 years automotive, energy, and a lot of other stuf.
when i was 12 i started to make my dads car to run on an anthracite stove… my first gasifier?
I never stopped learning and i hopefully will able to learn fore ever.
if the students doubt their teacher, then they learn…
if the student just nod their heads, the teacher has failed…
don’t touch , its hot…didnt feel pain? Nothing learned…
topic: focus on making quality gas, not try to make perfect gas…
build your gasifier, make the correct fuel for it and enjoy…
nothing is more easy…
Steve, its easy to produce methane with charcoal gasfier, but i hate the water downstream…
My charcoal mania, to make clean fuel, is also a quest, can i make that what i think it can? Exploring the unknown… and learning.
what if we can make an gasfier -engine -energy generator thats actualy an artificial tree?
Consuming more carbon dioxide and other waste then that it will produce? Same time providing us with the so much needed energy…
Think about it, i know it can…
Four years of college… that beats me 
Helping hand: 1:small nozzle , 2. If getting to hot, ad more exhaust gas. 3. Reduce the size of charcoal
the small nozzle will reduce the forming of carbon dioxide and benefit the conversion to co.
tell me what engine size and desired rpm, i will give you a suggested size and you can try if that works for you.
size of charcoal is the utmost important for a good quality gas. Small engines and low airspeed in the gasifier, sizing between anything bigger then dust and max 1/3"
Water, the power of the gods…
hypotese: inject one smallest unit of water in the cylinder at the peak of the detonation from the original gas mixture…
the water would be sublimating and gives a secondary kawboom ?
I think it will and it would benefit…
Thank you Koen for the offer to help me with building a char coal gasifier to run a single cylinder engine. That is something on my “bucket list” but at present it is down the list aways. Today I hope I finish building my wood chunkier out of a “hay baler”. At the same time I am taring down an old barn and burning it. After each burn I have been collecting the coals in sealed 55 gal. drums. At present I have 150 gal of charcoal/ash. Will have to make a screen to clean up the charcoal. In the mean time I need chunked wood to drive on. And then, MAYBE I will get to building a gasifier for my generator. I will get back to you then.TomC
Hi All
Weekend time. Hopefully a bit of time to view and read.
The MOST important single piece of gasifing documentation is here:
The PEGASAS Gasifer Unit
The Lost Art of Driving Without Gasoline
http://www.drtlud.com/nml-sesources/BEF-BK-DrivingOnWood2006.pdf
or
http://www.drtlud.com/drive-on-wood-2006/
Use the on page link. Loads slow. Be patient.
Only 136 pages.
Read/veiw in ~10 page chapter chunks. Skip what you want. Read what you will. Meat packed into every section to feed all something useable. Useable, it will take you years to figure out by yourself.
From your response to this I can actually predict if you are ever going to do anything real and useable with gasification.
Tell you why those who have did.
Those who have not: failed.
Off to be a go’fer, food server at a Town “Junk N’ Jazz” all day garages sales and bands event.
Regards
Steve Unruh
Thanks SteveU! I had trouble with the links above but nosed around on the site and found the links below:
http://www.drtlud.com/driving-on-wood-2006/
Interesting read so far, but it’ll take me a while to get through it all. I’m surprised the name PEGASUS hasn’t stuck to any modern day units!
Hey BillyB
Thanks for the links corrections.
I’ve found that AdminChris had loaded this up DOW linked back on 6/30 this year:
“Resources” topbar -> “Articles” -> currently 3rd down as “Drive On Wood: the Lost Art . . .”
This PEGASAS book/article equally covers woods/charcoal/fossil coal derivative fuel systems. So is useful to all.
I call this THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT GASIFIACTION REFERENCE TO USE because it is the only one that I have ever read that properly gives the HEAT half of thermalchemical gasifaction the importance and respect that it needs to ever be shaft power making susessful. This shows up in words, pictures, charts and diagrams from Chapter V “The Heat Buget”; and on to the very last text page.
The one author; Niels A. Skov a 1st generation Dane/American says these were aways called “stoves” there 1940-45.
A woodgasifier is a HEATdriven solids to gasious fuel converter/refiner.
Any internal or external engine is a HEATengine shaft power converter.
The fuel for these, and the actual chemicals in these fuels is secondary irrelevant to the importance of these fuels to just make the HEAT energy to make these HEATconverters work. So says Niels Skov, Mark Papworth and Harry (Jensen)LaFontaine. And now Steve Unruh.
Next proof of this can be seen here in this IC engine link:
http://www.5-takt-motor.com/Datelen/5T%20Beschreibung%20%&20Studie.pdf
Ha! DonM this was the best good detailed realistic link to a 5 cycle “exhaust heat” reclaiming engine I could find. Belgium Gehard Schmitz the designer. Search “Gerhard Schimtz 5 cycle engine” for a better link as you need.
Not promoting this engine.
My point is from way back in the early 1800’s engines are recognized as HEAT power to shaft power converters. This IS how engineering analysis on any of these will read.
No where in this engineering analysis will you find any reference to O’s, H’s or C’s! Or even nitrogen.
It’s all about heat rationalization. Expansion ratios. And other engine relevant things. How hot the metals are being subjected to; where; and for how long. Pressure rise and fall per degree of crankshaft angle.
Heat energy conversion to shaft rotational energy and the economics of this IS IT for the engine converter side.
Been the same since the early 1800’s. External combustion to late internal combustion and back again with terbines.
A careful reader will find at the very end of this PEGASAS book the proofs given from these pair of needs-musts 15,000 hour, 5 years multi-system users that you are much better on the gasifer side of it using engine exhaust injection than using water injection. Ha! Forty years ago, said this based on thirty years earlier DOing IT.
Leading up to my assertion you can predict Drive on Wood and Power With Wood successes by the person’s approach and his efforts directions.
Green beans ready for the picking now. A picking day - not a writing day to explain more.
Study these. More later.
Next a decade later published1984 follow-on report study by these same authors and 8-10 others.
THAT has the best 100,000 Japanese gasifier used pictures and info in it.
Regards
Steve Unruh
Hi All
I am intentionally making some very bold statements on this topic.
This is for fellows like Tom Collins and many other guys and gals here who just want to make an IC piston engine fueling woodgasifier. Make fuel-gas. Fuel run your engine for your own uses.
Refine and improve either side of this for better woodfuel usage and reduced needed maintenances.
This was exactly what those PEGUSAS Gasifier book writers were concerned about in their fascist Nazi all fuels robbed years. Wasn’t about making chemicals at all. The “science” of it. “Saving the World for like-minded just like me”. Just pure wrecked world food making, distributing survival. They were down to collecting, washing, drying and briquette making seaweed by their 4th and 5th cut off years for their gasifiers.
Small wonder the these Danes; other Nazi occupied countries folks dropped gasification; burnt Quisling/Vichy and other Nazi co-operators governmment documentation; metals scrapped-out gasifiers “stoves” after freedom again to buy dino-fuels as a forced bad memory of a very bad “crisis” times. People had died. Lots of family, friends and neighbors. I’ve walked the villages and seen the locals lost memorials.
They resurrected these “needs-must” useable and refined engine/gasifer knowledge and experiences 30 years later within 12 months after the first OPEC oil embargo. A can-do, local fuel technology.
Some of this is in the PEGASAS book intro. Some in the Harry LaFontaine article here in the DOW “Resources” -> “Articles”.
Younger here can get out of the PEGASAS intro and first 9 pages an excellent way-back feel for the social/economic/geo-political moods in 1974; and pre-WWII; and occupied oil starved WWII times. Us oldsters living through this reading, stirs realities lived. We blame “the Arabs”. Here in the good old USA and Canada our dino-fuels dependencies are strictly of our own makings
Next installment takes place in 1984 after the 2nd OPEC oil supply choke off.
Still looking for a clean link that will avoid a nasty comment put up by a neo-nazi justifier.
My 2nd proof that IC piston engines ARE simply Heat converters is here:
This engine was specifically designed to be able to as efficiently, and cleanly as possible, fuel with straight unprocessed vegetable oil. This engine was actually for a short time production financed and made. Costs, eco-politics and inability to get a vehicle OEM to use they fell back onto converting with their own patents and principals others vehicle installed engine conversions.
Go to the “Elsbett Diesel Technology” Open up and read:
Elsbett Engine
Duoethrerm Combustion System
Elsbett oil cooling System
Takes a LOT of engine contained-in HEAT, duel injectors, and turbulence to get those thick, dense vegetable oils all completely combusted to fully heat and expansion gases make.
No H’s, C’s or O’s talking here either. No maths. Bit on combustion soots. Woodgas relevant?
Enjoy
Steve Unruh
Morning All
OK last installment on this series:
“Producer Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport”
“Report by the Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee of the National Research Council”
First registered published Nov 18th 1983. 111 pages including the covers. 88 pages in good readable standard English text. A full half of that in clear historical then: and now 1979-1982 historical systems use in-use pictures. No Buck-Rogers woo-woo and elaberated Lab-Geek’ed systems anywhere in either if these two publications.
Both this, and the earlier PEGASAS publications are availble to buy as earlier, and current reprints on Amazon and others.
Only Net download readable links I can find on this 1984 “Producer Gas: Fuel Motor Transport” loops back to the same google books online read-link. An obvious new German Holocaust Denier fellow has used the google books review as his bully-pulpit on this download link. I am German-American by two named sides. 45,000,000 peoples died to put 1,000,000 working gasifier systems onto the face of the planet by 1945. THIS price was too high. THAT was the true in-bloods-grist for ReichMarshals Albert Speer’s 1943 300+ page gasification “contribution”. Grrrr.
So buy a paper book. Search up your own link to this 1984 publication I’m recommending as a #2 woodgas SHOULD read.
My #1 PEGASAS pick promises a detailed out plan for a working vehicle wood gasifier. The last section of it does give vehicle system design points to watch. I think that the authors really intended for a later plans supplement.
This IS delivered up in two pictured up systems in this 1984 ten year later publication:
The for a 2.1L four cylinder Volvo SMP F-300 trailer mount system.
In the fully pictured proportional trailer mounted woodgasifier system behind his large heavy 440+ CID stretched Lincoln sedan. Once you through a tiny hole scraped and cleaned you will see the sense in horizontal.
Want the internal’s dimensions? Use S.E. Werners site charts.
This 1984 publication with the extremely long name was a collaborative effort by 17 writer/contributors. At least 7 of these like carry-over Mr Skov were as young men very intense needs-must-do 1940-1945 users gasifier"stove" experienced. Other contributors by their bio’s were directly influenced by these real world DOers. Some of these other writer/contributors getting interested in the nearly 50’s probably still able to have directly experienced some of the war years systems still in operation.
Very interesting that this 1984 with all of that combined brain power has only exactly 1/2 page and then 1/4 page of thermalchemical maths. (Ha! The 1/4 page dedicated to nitrogen including!) This publication has been ego stripped out and leaned down to the real bones of useable gasification for motor fuel.
Gengas has 34 pages of boggling maths “proofs”. The best of Gengas for me was the early years pages 1939 to 1943 detailing the Swede social acceptance AND REJECTION of gasfing use by the people. THOSE reasons haven’t change at all. People are still People.
Shows me these 1984 fellows wanted their gasification for motor power information to be widely read; understood and taken as real world relevant and useable.
This 1984 publication has more pictures and referneces to the 100,000 gasfier sysems used in Japan. ~1939 to into the 1950’s than anywhere else.
Has all of the expected countries systems pictures. But rare ones even here with the three different sized Swede SMP’s 1960’s-80’s F-300, F-500 & F-800 as installed in-use. Gives performance and consumption specs. The F-300 Volvo system used “pre-charred” wood. Torrified - a Wayne Kieth early make-do. Shows a 1970’s? Finn VACOLA harrowing tractor mounted powering. Shows a 1980 German obviously Imbert new made mounted on a new “International” farm tractor offered up as available. Shows an American Florida rectangular mounted John Deere tractor power disc harrowing.
And then pictures from countries you never see: Cuba, China, the Phillipines and South Africa.
Each time that I re-read these two publication I end up making more and more notes. As my own experience has grown I’ve a much better appreciation of what these fellows DID say as ALL that is really needed to know to turn wood into shaft power right there in plain text.
Dr Tomas Reed after 33 modern gasification era years experience say this best in his 2006 Drive On Wood (PEGASAS) re-print introduction. Imbert types (side-jetted) Self-BALANCE elgantly!
Between these two publications you really have all of the necessary Why’s of it;
All needed for your “better ideas” gleeming-out before heart-aching why-nots in metals;
you need not read anything else for refernce.
Waynes book is a construction and operations manual. These other two validate everything he has been 10 years evolved learning. VesaM’s book the same.
If I was to say it only took me 6 years this would be a lie. Add in exprences with others, and their systems and rabbit-hole ideas it was 2X as long in man-years road for me as for Mr Wayne.
So . . . in my now many persons experenced in these last six years opinion; I can now accurately predict how well a person will do with woodgasification by one single factor:
HOW MUCH THEY ARE PERSONALLY USING IT ANNUALY.
These 1940’s forced using it fellows for virtually ALL of thier heat and power had it down in three year cycles.
WayneK: by looking over shoulder now is up to using wood for ~2/3rd of his families used energies.
Me and my wife for 1/3 of out annual heat energy/power budget.
“Woodgas using knowledge costs. How much wood-using-sweat are you willing to pay??” s.u.
So you want to make it real? Use it real. Period.
Regards
Steve Unruh off to pick and snap more green beans for snapping, blanching and freezing. More blueberrys last picking next. Universal foods for us, the dogs and the chickens. Still cannot eat the wood - directly.
1 Like
I 2nd that steve . AND THE PEGASAS READ IS A MUST I BELIEVE EVERYONE WOULD GAIN FROM READING,
Here’s an out of the box idea/question. If one doesn’t have enough retained heat to flash vaporize water mist in-cylinder, could one keep the engine from loosing so much heat, IE either drastically under-size the cooling system radiator or just isolate the radiator from the system?
If the engine isn’t bleeding off heat into the circulated coolant (probably leave a static water jacket to hold/moderate heat distribution) and radiator, would one be able to use metered water mist injections into the cylinder with the fuel gas to increase power and moderate engine temperature?
If one could pre-heat the injected water to as close to 99C as possible without going over, then the minimal amount of engine/fuel heats energy would be needed to phase-change micro-droplets of liquid water (mist) into expanding steam gas and piston preasure shaft power.
In effect, one would be trading external lost/wasted heat engine cooling for internal usable phase-change to shaft-power cooling.
Thoughts?
Excellent thoughts WABrian
Back in the early 80’s there began an annual University’s contest for projects to see “How many Miles can be driven on ONE Gallon of Gasoline” engineering students show-off’s.
The first years winner was at 300 some odd miles for that single gallon. Last current winner was up into the thousands of miles for that gallon. (Ha! Unfair! As gasoline formulations have changed since the beginning!)
Setting aside the micro vehicle sizing to unusable; on just the engine fronts from the first winner to the latest: engine heat maximizing using was exactly what they did.
The first winner engine was a single cylinder now insulated including the exhaust to retain-in heat and drive up temperatures. Their “game” like all racing was single purposed just to win. Engine longevity was NOT a factor. Broad seasonal and loads usages were not factors either.
Smoky Yunick just a bit earlier had a seriously proposed IC piston engine design to be made all of newly possible silicon carbide precision castings specifically to take heats overloading. No cooling system. Minimal lubrication needed.
Later in the 90’s Kyrocera down here in VancWA in their ceramics capacitor plant set up a serious Auto Parts Casting division to make and supply advanced precision cast ceramics internal engine parts like pistons, connecting rods and such. Again would need no machine finishing. Very minimal lubrication. Be VERY heat fatigue and erosions resistance. They hoped to advance into base engine block castings too.
SmokyY’s attempt fizzled with spin rumors of buy-outs, shelving and even forced set-backs on his health.
Kyrocera was much more forthcoming with their failures to launch. Theses high heat and erosions capable materials are much more shocks stress fragile than metals. They would unexpectedly break, shatter or surface shed “crazed” particles throughout the system. Unpredictable catastrophic failures. Now ceramics HAVE proven valuable as a metals coating.
Elevated engine temperatures past a certain point also leads to very unstable, unexpected combustion T&P (temperature and pressures) spiking. This really hammers hard on engine components hard. Can pound out rod bearings. Hammer holes in the best of pistons.
The late 50’s and 60’s Auto economy winning engines like in Ramblers, Falcons DID engine temperature boost; and enlean heat; and gearing pressure heat load-up right out to the ragged edge of then current metals and controls possibilities. How a 3-speed w/electric OD 1963-66 Ramble American could match a VW 1600 Beetle in fuel economy with the right drivers. Light aircraft piston fellows are very aware of T&P’s. Or; engine failure, crash.
These fuel economy hot running vehicles were “pingers”; and valve needing regrinders; and clutch slipping to start up eaters. You wanted to TOW; you got an auto transmissioned Ambassador, or Galaxy. These were set to be cool running, and able to cool further to do this added tow heat loading.
1970’s “Emmisions” made all manufactures have to play these hot running engine games then. Quickest way initially across the board to drive down their tailpipe out HC’s. Why the actual power de-ratings, shortend engine service lives, and valves burning then became common. Was more than just got “the lead out!”
So yes exhaust gas recirculation was to moderate down the engine life’s damaging spiking T&P’s more than just for Nox decreasing. This WAS when the water/methanol misting system were beneficial.
Certifying engine manufacture were not by Fed/State laws allowed to be OEM dependent on secondary needed replenished systems for ANY moderating.
Took finally 10-15 years lobbying, with California going a few years without newer BMW, Mercedes and VW diesel vehicles allowed sold. And then realistically NOT having any more new replacement diesel trucks, rail and other transport engine to get the Blue “cat-piss” urea diesel systems approved. Their hydrogen fuel dreaming by then a no-show, woo-woo, bust not even “rich” California could afford.
So Brian.
Same-ol’; same-ol’.
Just how much daily user cost savings really to be buying/producing gallons and gallons of distilled water, methanol and/or “supplement” like urea?? AND maintain an on board storage, command controlled metered dispensing system??
Most people you cannot even get to keep their windshield washer reservoirs filled!
So realistically. Wanna up your real IC engine fuel use efficiency easy?
Retire, sell, give away anything that is a valve-in-block flathead engine. Replace with an overhead valve engine. 20% improvement just there.
Wanna’ go more efficient?
In still an overhead valve configuration step up to an individual to each cylinder port fuel injected engine. Another 20% improvement. BECAUSE manufactures could raise compression ratios; have better in and out flows of gasses; able to tighter, more advanced timing tune and still have safe, long life engine useages.
Sorry. Overhead camming an IC piston engine does not automatically lead to a more efficient engine. Not until you can make it multi-valve. Then . . . at costs to the users.
Most manufacuters for selling and market reasons have taken these adavnces and in the same engine size give you 40% more on-demand power. Dodge Magnums V-8’s Your foot says you will use this Mo’power, using the same fuel as the older engines for that Mo’power used up.
Or manufactueres due to severe market areas Gov’mints Legal and Taxing regulations give you the same power as the old in a much now smaller dispacement “rated” engine size. Some engine fuel savings there alright. Much more in vehicle size/weights power needs downsizing and lightening that smaller, lighter engines help with.
Last lines summery. Will any “advanced” woo-woo system be wide climate, all seasons users ranges, real world useable?
Will it overall life cycle true costs expenses beat the old it is replacing?
Will it require MORE users daily, weekly, monthly prepping, grudging “working”?
Woodgasing for engine in all forms Does require this more grudging “working”. So does real use woodstoveing. So not for everyone. And never will be.
Regards
Steve Unruh
1 Like