# Beware of claims that Italian or Euro pellet stoves are superior?



## MCPO (Mar 6, 2013)

I recall reading where someone wrote his Italian Pallizetti(sp) pellet stove would cut his pellet usage in less than half (or something close) to that compared to other brands. Maybe I read it wrong but if not I`d be wary of such claims. The European designs are drop dead gorgeous and I don`t doubt they might even be a bit more efficient than the best north American competition but anything more than a bit is hard to swallow..


----------



## jtakeman (Mar 6, 2013)

Guess they didn't ask the Harman posse?


----------



## Defiant (Mar 6, 2013)

MCPO said:


> Italian Pallizetti(sp) pellet stove would cut his pellet usage in less than half


You do not want to mess with the mob


----------



## FyreBug (Mar 6, 2013)

Pallazzetti's have a good rep, extremely quiet and have high efficiency rating. Not heard of any dissatisfied owners. The only caveat is they only digest the very best pellets you can buy. 

Since they are not EPA certified the efficiencies is something you have to take at their words.


----------



## Bioburner (Mar 6, 2013)

Having purchased a good American stove or two and an Italian pellet stove they both have thier merits. And the North american stoves don't put a spin on the stoves? Ecoteck is tested by Warnock Hersey.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

Well as I understand things that EPA efficiency figure actually says damn little about pellet consumption as it is a mish mash.   So it is indeed possible for one stove to best another on the pellet consumption side of things one thing that would help is for that stove to not run a 35 to 1 air to fuel ratio to obtain a complete burn (say around 7 to 1 instead) and actually have a nice large heat exchanger that actually puts the heat into the room instead of up the flue would be another.


----------



## Pelleting In NJ (Mar 6, 2013)

Yes, that claim in that post is not credible.......so for the same amount of heat, the stove would have to be twice as efficient as his old stove......so lets say 80% x 2 = 160%.....that sounds reasonable....right?


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> Yes, that claim in that post is not credible.......so for the same amount of heat, the stove would have to be twice as efficient as his old stove......so lets say 80% x 2 = 160%.....that sounds reasonable....right?


 
Not if the EPA effeceincy figure is a true efficiency figure it isn't and if he is saying that he burns 1/2 the pellets as he was while you might think it is not possible it very well can be, pellets burned isn't the same as efficiency.


----------



## Pelleting In NJ (Mar 6, 2013)

Efficiency = (BTU of air blowing into the room) divided by (BTU content of pellets burned). For the same BTU output, a stove twice as efficient will burn half the pellets....simple math.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> Efficiency = (BTU content of fuel burned) divided by (BTU of heated air blowing into the room). For the same BTU output, a stove twice as efficient will burn half the pellets....simple math.


 
Yes but that isn't the same as those lovely touted EPA figures and your description is bass ackwards  BTUs into the room divided by the BTUs output from the pellets burned x 100 

Which is a far cry from BTUs into the room divided by possible BTUs output from the pellets burned x 100.


----------



## Pelleting In NJ (Mar 6, 2013)

...I corrected my typo...
EPA measures efficiency by measuring the BTU of the flue exhaust, and comparing that to the BTU content of the fuel being burned
Efficiency = ((BTU Fuel Content) - (BTU Flue)) / (BTU Fuel Content)
This will give you the same efficiency result no matter which formula you use.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

It involves an average of burn efficiency, electrical energy efficiency , and one other figure the heat exchanger efficiency IIRC (I haven't looked at the definition in several years).  It was posted on line on one of their sites and one of the national lab sites.

The combustion efficiency is considered to be 98% and the electrical efficiency is considered to be 99% add the heat exchanger efficiency in and divide by three not exactly a good way to do things but such as it may be, pellet stoves range between 50% and 86% efficient by this method.  Note not one mention of into the room BTUs in the whole daffinition.  Anyone want to hazard a guess on what this means in the real world? 

Just so everyone understands the amount of energy extracted by a pellet stove is so far below the maximum possible which is something like enough to power the US for 1.81 months from 1 pound of pellets.  But we just ain't there yet (think total mass to energy conversion ala nuclear processes).


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> ...I corrected my typo...
> EPA measures efficiency by measuring the BTU of the flue exhaust, and comparing that to the BTU content of the fuel being burned
> Efficiency = ((BTU Fuel Content) - (BTU Flue)) / (BTU Fuel Content)
> This will give you the same efficiency result no matter which formula you use.


Yes, efficiency is measured by  escaping stack btu divided into to total btu of fuel since it is safe to assume that any btu lost in transmission was lost inside the home.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> ...I corrected my typo...
> EPA measures efficiency by measuring the BTU of the flue exhaust, and comparing that to the BTU content of the fuel being burned
> Efficiency = ((BTU Fuel Content) - (BTU Flue)) / (BTU Fuel Content)
> This will give you the same efficiency result no matter which formula you use.


 
X 100 but you are forgetting about the heat released by the electrical parts of the stove and that definition makes far too much sense to be used and unless they recently changed is not the one that they allowed the stove makers to plaster all over the place.


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 6, 2013)

Anyone know what the ASTM 44.2 test involves, I think it is stack temp efficiency. The folks from astm are holding a round table at the heatne conference April 3 to gain input for the inclusion of biomass heaters in the standard


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> Anyone know what the ASTM 44.2 test involves, I think it is stack temp efficiency. The folks from astm are holding a round table at the heatne conference April 3 to gain input for the inclusion of biomass heaters in the standard


 
No, but the only thing I can remember about stack tests was that they were more along the lines of efficeincy by the means of smoke and other items in the exhaust stream.


----------



## Pelleting In NJ (Mar 6, 2013)

The point I was trying to make is that a stove that consumes half as much pellets as another stove, while providing the same amount of BTUs of heat into a home, is twice as efficient.

Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution (3.4 BTU/Wx100W=340 BTUs) of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> The point I was trying to make is that a stove that consumes half as much pellets as another stove, while providing the same amount of BTUs of heat into a home, is twice as efficient.
> 
> Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.


 
That little 80 to 100 watts becomes +33% in the efficiency figures published.

Yes and it is possible for one stove to be twice as efficient as another, in fact some of those stoves out there are less than 50% efficient in real terms and if you do everything possible to not send your heat up the flue (this includes house air you've heated) you may be able cut your fuel consumption in half. But never go on those published efficiency figures because they ain't real in all cases. Do not confuse fuel consumption with those efficiency figures and if the gubmint is involved make certain what is allowed out as an efficiency figure is a measured or assumed figure in a lot of cases with pellet stoves it is still an assumed figure.

It is like an oil burner tech telling me my heating system is 80% efficient or whatever from a 5 minute test and knowing that there are ongoing flue losses if the unit doesn't have a flue damper that closes when the burner isn't running.


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 6, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> The point I was trying to make is that a stove that consumes half as much pellets as another stove, while providing the same amount of BTUs of heat into a home, is twice as efficient.
> 
> Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution (3.4 BTU/Wx100W=340 BTUs) of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.


And that stove doesn't really exist


----------



## DexterDay (Mar 6, 2013)

Twice the efficiency or a 50% savings is a stretch. Some stoves are better than others.. Yes they are. But not that much better. 

I have a good stove (Quad) and I am getting a Better stove this year. But it won't decrease my consumption by 50% 

I have decreased my overall consumption by 50%  Butbi started burning wood. So I burn 3 cord of wood my basement, to save 2.5 ton of pellets a year  reducing pellet consumption by 50% is possible, but those BTU''s have to come from from somewhere?


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 6, 2013)

I would have a hard time believing that pellet consumption was 1/2 of prior use unless he also upgraded several other factors - insulation, windows, doors, etc.  The Palazetti seems to be a slightly different beast in that it is a cast iron body so it may retain more heat in the body of the stove itself - a heat sink.  The majolica tiles on the Ecotecks are supposed to act in a similar manner (but significantly different heat retaining ability than cast iron).

From what Keith at Northland Distributing mentioned about their testing, he admitted they screwed up by not bring superior pellets with them for the test.  They didn't bring pellets with them so had to use whatever they could purchase locally.  Figured they would have achieved a higher BTU for the Ecoteck stoves if he had...


----------



## PoolGuyinCT (Mar 6, 2013)

My quad Castile is cast iron, veneer anyway


----------



## Bioburner (Mar 6, 2013)

I think I can throw another wrench in the hopper. Radiant energy. Hard one to quantify with pellet stoves. Almost no radiant out of a Bixby. But a fair amount out of the Harman and Ecoteck.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 6, 2013)

PoolGuyinCT said:


> My quad Castile is cast iron, veneer anyway


 
I went looking ... sorry not cast body, cast combustion chamber with double combustion, majolica sides. Double combustion purportedly increases efficiency - primary combustion is the pellet, secondary is the gases given off by the primary combustion but air for secondary has to be preheated.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 6, 2013)

Servicing on this unit might be very interesting...


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 7, 2013)

MCPO said:


> I recall reading where someone wrote his Italian Pallizetti(sp) pellet stove would cut his pellet usage in less than half (or something close) to that compared to other brands. Maybe I read it wrong but if not I`d be wary of such claims. The European designs are drop dead gorgeous and I don`t doubt they might even be a bit more efficient than the best north American competition but anything more than a bit is hard to swallow..


Well.. I have a Palazzetti and compared to my QuadraFire and Whitfield, yes my pellet consumption YTD is down 40%. I suggest you check out there design before casting doubts..and quite honestly, I still can't believe how efficient the stove is


----------



## tjnamtiw (Mar 7, 2013)

PoolGuyinCT said:


> My quad Castile is cast iron, veneer anyway


Unfortunately, with one small exception, our Castiles only have cast iron 'look pretty' panels that contribute almost nothing to the heat going into the room.  In fact, the front actually detracts from the smooth flow of air into the room.  I run mine with the front cast 'door' open.  The combustion area is all Chinese sheet steel with two small access panels that ARE cast iron.


----------



## PoolGuyinCT (Mar 7, 2013)

tjnamtiw said:


> Unfortunately, with one small exception, our Castiles only have cast iron 'look pretty' panels that contribute almost nothing to the heat going into the room.  In fact, the front actually detracts from the smooth flow of air into the room.  I run mine with the front cast 'door' open.  The combustion area is all Chinese sheet steel with two small access panels that ARE cast iron.




You are correct,  quad has referred to it as a cast stove, and so did the genius I bought it from.. After scrutinizing, as I noted originally , "cast veneer" in my early post,

Veneer was my attempt at sarcasm...


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 7, 2013)

The Palazzetti has dual very large cast iron heat exchanger's, anyone that is skeptical of it's performance is invited to stop by for the day...you bring the beer and I will supply the TV and food


----------



## Chain (Mar 7, 2013)

It sounds like it's a "gasification" pellet stove similar to what is now available in outdoor wood boilers.  If so, I can believe that it's much more efficient as the concept substantially improves efficiency in wood boilers.


----------



## Pelleting In NJ (Mar 7, 2013)

The CSA 415B Efficiency measurement is based on determinining the BTU content of the flue gases, so it is accurate independent of the  amount of heat the stove radiates into the room.


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> The Palazzetti has dual very large cast iron heat exchanger's, anyone that is skeptical of it's performance is invited to stop by for the day...you bring the beer and I will supply the TV and food


 
Bingo!   It was in one of YOUR previous posts where I saw your claim. OK now, your claim was that you  used "40% less pellets" YTD  than your previous stove. I`m not going to dispute your figures but maybe how you arrived at them.
 This year to date I`m using 30% more with my stove but that can be attributed at least partially to the weather or the pellets .
 A cast iron heat exchanger isn`t likely to transfer heat significantly better than steel . It`s more about the design than the material used.
 As I said before I can see big differences in overall efficiencies with a cheapie Joe stove vs a high end stove but 40% less fuel used in one stove vs another competitive brand would seem highly unusual and unlikely to me. Even the Pallizetti ads I saw didn`t claim 40%. If this was possible I don`t think any other high end brand would have a chance and Palizetti  would be touting those claimed figures in their ads .
 I mean 40% is very significant and would represent a major breakthrough in heating technology and from what I see so far the only difference is a cast iron heat exchanger which is more or less meaningless from what I understand.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 7, 2013)

What the banded about figures seen for most pellet stoves are is a joke and the joke is on a lot of people.

A stove rated under the three factors method that says 76% efficient has a heat exchanger that is only 31% efficient that leaves a lot of room for improvement (talk to turbulator folks that did a few experiments with some quadrafire stoves)..

One rated at 86% has a heat exchanger that is 62% efficient not enough room for a doubling of output but still a lot of room for improvement (talk to the condensing boiler folks).

Now add in how most people seem to operate their stoves, namely ash filled or with crud in their convection systems, that leaves all kinds of room (do some searches or talk to anyone who has purchased a used unit). 

As always with any labeled EPA mileage ratings, YMWV (the W is for Will which is a stronger statement than May).


Chain,

You got one part of it some of those pellet stoves are indeed gasification units,  but nothing beats a really good heat exchanger system.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> The Palazzetti has dual very large cast iron heat exchanger's, anyone that is skeptical of it's performance is invited to stop by for the day...you bring the beer and I will supply the TV and food


 
Phil, do you have good schematics/work manual for the stove? Since it is a rare beast, repairs may be interesting. My resident fire science guru figures it may be "fussy" on internal set-up to get that gasification ratio just right. He's also leery of the cast combustion chamber - cast is not easily repaired... While efficiency is great, the big test will be years down the road.

Wishing many years of efficient heat

Edit:  Not all over Canada - mostly eastern - significantly less in central and western.  Will have to get first hand look next time I visit my boy in Thunder Bay as there is a dealer there!​


----------



## Chain (Mar 7, 2013)

Lake Girl said:


> Phil, do you have good schematics/work manual for the stove? Since it is a rare beast, repairs may be interesting. My resident fire science guru figures it may be "fussy" on internal set-up to get that gasification ratio just right. He's also leery of the cast combustion chamber - cast is not easily repaired... While efficiency is great, the big test will be years down the road.
> 
> Wishing many years of efficient heat


 
I'm intrigued about the gasification process as well.  Given the heat requirements to make the process work, and that pellet stoves are usually not as hot as wood stoves/boilers, it must not leave too much room for error in a pellet stove.  But given the advancements over the years in constant monitoring via computerized control boards, sensors, etc., it certainly makes sense that gasification would find its way into pellet stoves.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Mar 7, 2013)

If you look at the Ecofire brochure you'll see that it actually does have some MODERN heat exchange technology using extruded pieces with large surface areas compared to the Middle Age technology of smooth tubing.  Many of our stoves including mine could have been much better served by using extruded finned tubing which presents much more surface area.  Sure it would be harder to remove the ash build up but I'm certain that it would be a minor modification perhaps using steel or copper bristles instead of the antique scrapper system.
As far as efficiency measuring the exhaust gases, don't forget that if you have incomplete combustion, which we do, some of the ash and gases going up the flue are caring wasted btu's out of the house and are not being captured by the testing.  The truth is that we don't have a clue what the real efficiency is.  Face it!  Two years ago, some may recall an attempt by a college student on here trying to work out a way to measure efficiency and we all got a chuckle out of some of his ASSumptions......


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 7, 2013)

National Energy Equipment of Winnipeg has them too... going to the 'Peg today so may get a look this weekend

Dealer in Maine as well...  
http://www.mainestoveandchimney.com/Maine_Stove_&_Chimney/Pellet_Stoves.html

Can't find your guy on ebay Phil


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks Lake Girl, but I'm having way too much fun playing with my bucket of parts stove and not sure the boss will go for new bucket of parts at the moment.  Besides I have to get my exercise some how, might as well be in lugging pellets around  .


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> Well.. I have a Palazzetti and compared to my QuadraFire and Whitfield, yes my pellet consumption YTD is down 40%. I suggest you check out there design before casting doubts..and quite honestly, I still can't believe how efficient the stove is


 



As I said earlier I wouldn`t want to dispute your figures but there could be many reasons contributing to a 40% drop in fuel. We have to assume some of that 40% was due to your old stove inefficiency , venting , and pellet brand. Are you using the same pellet brand ? Was your old stove connected the same way or could it have been a faulty install?
I`m always skeptical of what usually amounts to what I think of as exaggerated claims of heating appliances , especially pellet stoves since the variables are many and always subject to inconsistancies. No where in Palizetti literature do I see any reference to gasification.
I recall when I first purchased a supposedly highly advanced (catalytic burner ) European oil stove made by Franco Belge (Belgium). This was back when oil was much less than it currently is and I bought it ,at least partially under the premises that the Europeans held the technological edge in heating appliances due to their higher fuel costs. It was an excellent stove in actual use for 7 yrs but the truth was I found absolutely no savings whatsoever when compared against heating that space with the zone off my oil furnace.
I used it for the sake of having a stove burning in the winter and for power outages since it required no electric.
Obviously some stoves will indeed save pellets over others but 40% seems a stretch to me. I know it`s human nature to exaggerate a bit especially when one feels he has purchased a particular product and wants to feel justified . Believe me if I knew for sure that I would save 40% on the amount of pellets I use I`d be jumping at the opportunity.
Unfortunately for me there`s only one way to separate the wheat from the chaffe.


----------



## bbone (Mar 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> Well.. I have a Palazzetti and compared to my QuadraFire and Whitfield, yes my pellet consumption YTD is down 40%. I suggest you check out there design before casting doubts..and quite honestly, I still can't believe how efficient the stove is


 Phil,  where did you get stove from,  and I might just take you up on your offer about seeing it in action,  will be in Hyde Park Sunday


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

I just ran across a thread https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/palazzetti-prima-pellet-stove-is-awesome.101210/ where the same OP claimed "Damn stove uses almost 50% less pellets than my previous stoves" . While not a great difference it is not the same as 40%. On another page in that same thread you write it`s saving you 30% compared to the Quad.
This is what I mean about exaggerations. I think most of us tend to have a propensity to embellish something we really like and that`s probably normal..
If in fact this is truly a standout pellet stove and will indeed cut pellet useage 40% over competing models , then we can be assured it or similar technology  will find it`s way into more stoves and showrooms and will be "the" pellet stove to buy.

I apologize if I come across as insulting or offensive , that wasn`t my intent.

There`s nothing I`d like more than finding out that I`m dead wrong in all my assumptions.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 7, 2013)

http://www.palazzetti.it/en/i_prodotti/vero_falso.php double combustion and fresh air

http://www.palazzetti.it/en/i_prodotti/10_regole.php flue and fresh air intake references


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

Lake Girl said:


> http://www.palazzetti.it/en/i_prodotti/vero_falso.php double combustion and fresh air
> 
> http://www.palazzetti.it/en/i_prodotti/10_regole.php flue and fresh air intake references


 Great find !  The first link indeed shows us the stove was designed for a secondary burn capability as in some later designed cordwood stoves. This works effectively in cordwood stoves that are known to emit copius amounts of moisture and the multitude of other combustable chemical elements found in cordwood fuel venting up into the chimney that would normally  turn into creosote when it isn`t burned at a high and wasteful rate.
   I know from experience my Pacific Energy wood stove with a heated air injection manifold system (secondary burn) did reduce my cordwood use by approx 25%.  However, I do wonder how much of these burnable by products remain in clean,dry, high quality compressed pellets and if the same rate of savings from a secondary burn would apply in a pellet stove..
To begin with ,  the air/oxygen being blown into a pellet fire has to be  lot more efficient than the free flow of oxygen through a typical cordwood stove . Pellets are also a much better fuel . This to me would somewhat mitigate the same benefit of this secondary burn technology in a pellet stove. I`m not saying it isn`t possible to see a savings but I don`t see it as being easily measureable , or as much as they would like us to believe.  There probably is enough by product left from a pellet fire to produce a secondary burn but after introducing the much needed super heated air is there still a significant savings?
 Forgive me for attempting to punch holes in the theory behind all this but I think we can learn more by doing just that.


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

This secondary burn technology isn`t new to pellet burning stoves. We used to have a dealer (good forum contributor)  in upper NY who favored the Paromax stove.(made in Canada) He often boasted of it`s heat output per lb of fuel compared to others. The Paromax too has been produced for years and uses the same technology, probably with recently improved features .
 I think what held back popularity and sales was the cost of it and not having an auto start feature.
 Lets not forget the service and parts availability of foreign products.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 7, 2013)

MCPO said:


> This secondary burn technology isn`t new to pellet burning stoves. We used to have a dealer (good forum contributor) in upper NY who favored the Paromax stove.(made in Canada) He often boasted of it`s heat output per lb of fuel compared to others. The Paromax too has been produced for years and uses the same technology, probably with recently improved features .
> I think what held back popularity and sales was the cost of it and not having an auto start feature.
> Lets not forget the service and parts availability of foreign products.


 
The Paromax unit is a gasifier and has a very large heat exchanger, very low particulate emissions, and a very low air to fuel ratio it is known by several names under several different makers, the stove is now back with its inventor.

People know it as the Europa or Europa 75 (under Dell Point, and at least one other maker, prior to going to Paromax).


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 7, 2013)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> The Paromax unit is a gasifier and has a very large heat exchanger, very low particulate emissions, and a very low air to fuel ratio it is known by several names under several different makers, the stove is now back with its inventor.
> 
> People know it as the Europa or Europa 75 (under Dell Point, and at least one other maker, prior to going to Paromax).


It was also the regency greenfire 75


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 7, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> It was also the regency greenfire 75


 
Yup, that it was.  Now Claude has it back.


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 7, 2013)

Perhaps ahead of its time and no igniter....


----------



## John Ackerly (Mar 7, 2013)

I suspect lots of European pellet stoves are 50% more efficient, meaning up to 90% LHV instead of around 60%.  The reason many US manufacturers make low efficiency pellet stoves is because there is no requirement that manufacturers test or report efficiency in any standardized way, so the consumer and even those of us who consider ourselves knowledgeable insiders  - are completely in the dark about pellet stove efficiencies.  We have a list of real, verified pellet stove efficiencies that shows a range of between 36 and 86% efficiency, LHV, with an average of 75% efficiency, LHV.  Brand names and models were redacted, so we don't know which stoves are which but its a reliable list provided by HPBA consultants to the EPA.  How would you like to be the sucker that bought the 36% efficient stove, or another one that is tested at 53%, LHV?


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 7, 2013)

Lake Girl said:


> Phil, do you have good schematics/work manual for the stove? Since it is a rare beast, repairs may be interesting. My resident fire science guru figures it may be "fussy" on internal set-up to get that gasification ratio just right. He's also leery of the cast combustion chamber - cast is not easily repaired... While efficiency is great, the big test will be years down the road.
> 
> Wishing many years of efficient heat
> 
> Edit: Not all over Canada - mostly eastern - significantly less in central and western. Will have to get first hand look next time I visit my boy in Thunder Bay as there is a dealer there!​


 Hi Lake Girl,

I do have the schematics and manual. The stove is real easy to clean and the auger, blowers and sensors can easily be removed in about 10 minutes. Good cast iron holds up for years, I had coal stoves for several years and they really run hot!. Thanks, I hope to have the stove for years to come


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 7, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> Perhaps ahead of its time and no igniter....


 
Igniter, that's what a little gel and matches were made for.

The tricky thing with that stove as I understand it was to get the ash extraction system just right.

Oh, it was a multi fuel unit to boot.


----------



## webbie (Mar 7, 2013)

It is possible that the best European (and American!) Pellet stoves are truly twice as efficient as the worse ones......

Some extensive testing would have to be done to prove this - but way back when, some in-home tests were done on Pellet stoves and the difference was vast...even though all claimed high efficiency. 

I think it would be fair to say that the best Pellet stoves might be 50% more efficient than some models of yesteryear or poor quality units. 

But so many other factors are important - OSA temperature and feed, pellets, adjustments, rate that stove is run at, etc.

I would expect that advances in technology, if and when applied to pellet stoves, would tune them up even more.


----------



## MCPO (Mar 7, 2013)

I think it`s a reasonable expectation that a new stove with the latest tech built into it would perform better and be more efficient than the older ones .
   I just question how much more  .
   BUT , we do know there`s always a certain amount of fluff in the ads and ad literature where the product would rarely live up to . And lets not forget testing is usually done under the best controlled environments and  probably not able to be accurately duplicated in our homes. Manufacturer testing would almost certainly be  exaggerated  or skewed . 
 Still, I`m sure many of the new pellet stoves are a valid improvement.


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 8, 2013)

MCPO said:


> Bingo! It was in one of YOUR previous posts where I saw your claim. OK now, your claim was that you used "40% less pellets" YTD than your previous stove. I`m not going to dispute your figures but maybe how you arrived at them.
> This year to date I`m using 30% more with my stove but that can be attributed at least partially to the weather or the pellets .
> A cast iron heat exchanger isn`t likely to transfer heat significantly better than steel . It`s more about the design than the material used.
> As I said before I can see big differences in overall efficiencies with a cheapie Joe stove vs a high end stove but 40% less fuel used in one stove vs another competitive brand would seem highly unusual and unlikely to me. Even the Pallizetti ads I saw didn`t claim 40%. If this was possible I don`t think any other high end brand would have a chance and Palizetti would be touting those claimed figures in their ads .
> I mean 40% is very significant and would represent a major breakthrough in heating technology and from what I see so far the only difference is a cast iron heat exchanger which is more or less meaningless from what I understand.


The season isn't over yet and I agree that once I fire the stove down for the last time, 40% will probably not be the final number. It's colder here this year and the stove keeps track of hours in operation. I will figure out the pounds per hour used at the end of the season. I am 3 bags away from using my 1st ton of pellets ( I have the receipts)The Palazzetti reburns the gases as they exit the firepot. There is not one but two heat exchangers. The overall size of the heat exchanger area is large compared to both my previous stoves. Exhaust exiting the 5 foot outiside pellet vent are around 180 degrees, far less than the norm of 350-500 degrees of my Quad.


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 8, 2013)

bbone said:


> Phil, where did you get stove from, and I might just take you up on your offer about seeing it in action, will be in Hyde Park Sunday


On Ebay, Far West Sales in Oregon. $2250.00 freight included. My wife and I sold our second house and closing is on Monday, may not be able to meet with you this Sunday


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 8, 2013)

MCPO said:


> I just ran across a thread https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/palazzetti-prima-pellet-stove-is-awesome.101210/ where the same OP claimed "Damn stove uses almost 50% less pellets than my previous stoves" . While not a great difference it is not the same as 40%. On another page in that same thread you write it`s saving you 30% compared to the Quad.
> This is what I mean about exaggerations. I think most of us tend to have a propensity to embellish something we really like and that`s probably normal..
> If in fact this is truly a standout pellet stove and will indeed cut pellet useage 40% over competing models , then we can be assured it or similar technology will find it`s way into more stoves and showrooms and will be "the" pellet stove to buy.
> 
> ...


No reason to apologize, so far the stove has been a real pellet miser


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 8, 2013)

The Fireplace Showcase, about 3 miles from me is the distributor and importer for Palazzetti. I think he may have sold his distribution though...

I wouldn't be so surprised to find some of the best names in the business to have rather weak efficiency numbers. To what detriment is publishing great number, however you arrive at them. People love the Audi A8 as a luxury car but it is the worlds biggest carbon polluter...boasting something like 10.2 miles per gallon

I can tell you that it's not uncommon to have 300or even 500 temps flowing out of a pellet vent...just don't clean it....and that would go for the Palazzetti too I'm sure


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 8, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> The Fireplace Showcase, about 3 miles from me is the distributor and importer for Palazzetti. I think he may have sold his distribution though...
> 
> I wouldn't be so surprised to find some of the best names in the business to have rather weak efficiency numbers. To what detriment is publishing great number, however you arrive at them. People love the Audi A8 as a luxury car but it is the worlds biggest carbon polluter...boasting something like 10.2 miles per gallon
> 
> I can tell you that it's not uncommon to have 300or even 500 temps flowing out of a pellet vent...just don't clean it....and that would go for the Palazzetti too I'm sure


 
And to think that people get peeved when the ministers preach the gospel of a clean stove and vent system.


----------



## moey (Mar 8, 2013)

I could believe it, pellet stoves compete with propane and oil its not much competition even with a inefficient model. The incentive to improve is not there especially when the US has terrible standards for measuring efficiency. One just has to look at AFUE is calculated and used in marketing.


----------



## Phil Do's fire. (Mar 8, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> The Fireplace Showcase, about 3 miles from me is the distributor and importer for Palazzetti. I think he may have sold his distribution though...
> 
> I wouldn't be so surprised to find some of the best names in the business to have rather weak efficiency numbers. To what detriment is publishing great number, however you arrive at them. People love the Audi A8 as a luxury car but it is the worlds biggest carbon polluter...boasting something like 10.2 miles per gallon
> 
> I can tell you that it's not uncommon to have 300or even 500 temps flowing out of a pellet vent...just don't clean it....and that would go for the Palazzetti too I'm sure


 I spoke with Palazzetti distributer Adam B and parts are stocked in Mass. and several retailers selling them in my area. There here to stay according to Adam and Fireside showcase is selling and servicing the stove.


----------



## Shaw520 (Mar 8, 2013)

You want cast iron,... http://newhaven.craigslist.org/for/3566645140.html


----------



## skibumm100 (Mar 8, 2013)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> ....... and actually have a nice large heat exchanger that actually puts the heat into the room instead of up the flue would be another.


 
I like the way you think Smokey. The bigger, the better, within reason.


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 8, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> I spoke with Palazzetti distributer Adam B and parts are stocked in Mass. and several retailers selling them in my area. There here to stay according to Adam and Fireside showcase is selling and servicing the stove.


Adam is an outside sales person, represents a lot of product


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 8, 2013)

Shaw520 said:


> You want cast iron,... http://newhaven.craigslist.org/for/3566645140.html


Yeah, the only thing cast on that is the door. You cannot weld cast together very well.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 8, 2013)

skibumm100 said:


> I like the way you think Smokey. The bigger, the better, within reason.


 
The thing with heat exchangers is that you have to wash both sides with gases (in this case) and you need a decent temperature differential between the two sides to allow conduction to transfer the heat from what is on one side to the other at a decent rate through the exchanger.

Quite a bit of heat is still in the system even after shutdown has occurred in some stoves and a fraction of this can find its way up the flue.


----------



## smwilliamson (Mar 8, 2013)

That there is k value


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 8, 2013)

Pelleting In NJ said:


> The point I was trying to make is that a stove that consumes half as much pellets as another stove, while providing the same amount of BTUs of heat into a home, is twice as efficient.
> 
> Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution (3.4 BTU/Wx100W=340 BTUs) of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.


 

show me a stove which "outputs" 60Kbtu with an EPA certification unless it burns 9 lbs an hour its BS unless its 90+ % efficient in heat transfer its a lie


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Mar 9, 2013)

smwilliamson said:


> That there is k value


 
I call it an inefficiency but then I get disgusted at a lot of things. 

But what really get me p*ssed off is that stupid 3 factor non measured formula that gets used to provide the efficiency figure attached to all but the certified stoves. 

It is just one big assumption and leads to threads like this.

On the forum last night a fellow asked if he should use the mag setting in the manual or the lower setting that was sending a lot hotter air out of the stove.   Several things came to mind, his meter wasn't quite accurate, he hadn't let the stove reach equilibrium, the manual was wrong, or he forgot the part that the damper setting is only a starting point and from there you use the trims to adjust for the fuel in the stove.

I chose to say nothing as I want to see the responses he gets.

It seems that a lot of folks forget the entire picture and home in on one little thing, things rarely work that way.


----------

