# Central Boiler 1400 vs 2400



## Mass Heat

Looking at Central Boiler and my worst case heat demand is about 94k btu. My current oil boiler is 100k. I'm looking to get a 12 hour burn time at the minimum. Should I go with the 1400 with 72k over 12 hours or the 2400 with 125k btu capability. If I go with the 2400 I can also heat a 25x25 garage later on. EPA also lists the 2400 as a cleaner burning boiler. In addition it holds more water, 340 vs 200 gallons. I rather go larger, but I hear that over sizing is not efficient. I could also hold out for the 1450, which supposedly will put out a little more btu. But it's not EPA approved yet. Also has anyone seen stack temperatures on these units? Called CB and the sales guy didn't know. Considering this brand because I got two dealers within 30 minutes. Looking at some other options as well, but living in Mass it limits my option to EPA phase 2 outdoor units and ASME indoor units.  Any advice?


----------



## goosegunner

I would be surprised if you could get that output over 12 hours.

94,000 btus per hour is about 225 lbs of wood for 12 hours, not factoring in loss to the outdoors. I know you said worst case but dang that is some wood to be loading.

gg


----------



## martyinmi

How old is your boiler, how efficient is it, and how many gallons/ year do you go through? Lotsa CB nuts out here that will be glad to help you out.


----------



## Mass Heat

Oil boiler was installed in 1994 and was estimated at 82% efficient. Last year I burned 1200 gallons. A lot less this year.


----------



## flyingcow

A buddy of mine is a CB dealer up here. He said to figure for every 100 gals of oil, you will be burning 1 cord of seasoned wood to replace that.  Just food for thought. get 12 cord stacked and drying for the future.


----------



## Mass Heat

12 cords a year scares me, at that point I'll need to buy some wood. Not enough time to haul, cut and spilt that much. Have about 6 cords and it was pretty time consuming. Hope that figure is wrong. I was told the Optimizer would burn less would because of the lower stack temp and heat exchanger design. P&M has less bells and whistles and costs more. Definitely want a unit that will burn less wood.


----------



## woodsmaster

The empyre elite looks like a nice outdoor gassifier with a good HX design. Heard it's a hard job to change the nozzle in
Portage and main. It's cemented in place. Also some other modifacations that need to be done to it. May want to read
some about it at http://www.outdoorwoodfurnaceinfo.com/forum/


----------



## martyinmi

Mass Heat said:
			
		

> Oil boiler was installed in 1994 and was estimated at 82% efficient. Last year I burned 1200 gallons. A lot less this year.



You go through roughly the same amount of heating oil that I used to. My P&M 250 is overkill for my situation, and I'd bet the CB 1400 or 1450 would suit you fine. In the coldest weather I can easily get a 24 hour burn. I think the CB 1400 primary burn chamber is a bit larger than mine, so 12 hour burns should easy. 12 cords of wood consumed would not be realistic. 6-7 would be. I can't see you going through over 200 lbs./day

Most of the gassers are pretty close to each other as far as efficiencies go. If the P&M were more efficient, it would be negligible.

It's encouraging to see you are not considering a conventional OWB. That's a wise move. You'll love the free heat and domestic hot water. Your neighbors will love you. 

Have fun, and keep us all informed!


----------



## flyingcow

I do not mean to start a peeing match, but 12 cord won't be far off, if you used 1200 gals. Maybe 10 cord, but that would be about it.


----------



## goosegunner

martyinmi said:
			
		

> Mass Heat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil boiler was installed in 1994 and was estimated at 82% efficient. Last year I burned 1200 gallons. A lot less this year.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see you going through over 200 lbs./day
Click to expand...


Granted it is not average load and probably only happens a few days a year but,

On his max load days of 94,000 btus/hr it would be 2,256,000 btus in a 24 hour period. A very efficient system would need 451 lbs

Some thing sitting outside with 2-4" of insulation on it at those temps is not going to get 5000 btus per lb of wood delivered to the load.

If his average is half of his design load it would be over 200lbs. Can't get more energy out than you put in.

gg


----------



## Mass Heat

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 200 pounds per day equate to roughly 3 full cords per month? Do you think that putting a unit in a insulated shed would be more efficient? If so, how much?  The more I look into this the more my head spins. Right now I'm thinking a pressurized system with storage is the way to go. Only problem is mass requiring ASME stamp and limiting my choice to Econoburn or Woodgun. If I can get the town to overlook the ASME, I'm probably going to go with a Vigas!


----------



## flyingcow

Whats the price on a Classic? i looked onto a E-Classic 4 or 5 yrs ago. They wanted $12000 plus change. So i went with what i have, an indoor gasser with storage, for about the same money. Storage is nice to have, but not a must. Just put a indoor gasser in, plumb for storage to be put in later? I was told to figure for every 150 gals of oil, a cord of seasoned wood will replace it. Possibly closer to 175 gals of oil. i am closer to 175 now I have experience.

Too bad you don't have a little more options than what Mass law tells you.


----------



## goosegunner

Mass Heat said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 200 pounds per day equate to roughly 3 full cords per month? Do you think that putting a unit in a insulated shed would be more efficient? If so, how much?  The more I look into this the more my head spins. Right now I'm thinking a pressurized system with storage is the way to go. Only problem is mass requiring ASME stamp and limiting my choice to Econoburn or Woodgun. If I can get the town to overlook the ASME, I'm probably going to go with a Vigas!



Depends on the wood.

Oak at 20% weighs about 3800/cord so 200 lbs/day would be 19 days per cord or 1.57 cord per month.

First thing is to get a better estimate of your actual heat load. I was not trying to scare you off. I was more making the point that every situation is different. Some people will throw out their numbers but it really means nothing to you and your heat load.

My storage is in a insulated building. The box is insulated to R75. I was amazed how warm it was just inside the last cover layer. I just can't imagine how many btus would be lost from a unit outside with 2-4" of insulation. If the tank is in one of the loads it is not lost completely as it contributes to heating that load.

There is one other factor to consider and that is heat is not lost from unburnt fuel itself. The difficulty with that is smoldering fires are messy and difficult to manage in the shoulder seasons. That is when storage really shines. After running my Econoburn without storage for the first year and now with storage. I would never want to go back. Especially as the weather warms. 

I wish I would have taken pictures of boiler firebox with and without storage the difference is remarkable.


gg


----------



## Noggah

Mass Heat said:
			
		

> Looking at Central Boiler and my worst case heat demand is about 94k btu. My current oil boiler is 100k. I'm looking to get a 12 hour burn time at the minimum. Should I go with the 1400 with 72k over 12 hours or the 2400 with 125k btu capability. If I go with the 2400 I can also heat a 25x25 garage later on. EPA also lists the 2400 as a cleaner burning boiler. In addition it holds more water, 340 vs 200 gallons. I rather go larger, but I hear that over sizing is not efficient. I could also hold out for the 1450, which supposedly will put out a little more btu. But it's not EPA approved yet. Also has anyone seen stack temperatures on these units? Called CB and the sales guy didn't know. Considering this brand because I got two dealers within 30 minutes. Looking at some other options as well, but living in Mass it limits my option to EPA phase 2 outdoor units and ASME indoor units.  Any advice?




Hey Mass,

I would go with 2400 and heat the garage. My garage has been 55 degrees all winter, nice. You will certainly get 12+ hours on a burn. The stove monitors and displays temps in the reaction chamber. I don't know what the stack temp would matter with this set up. I hope that does not sound ignorant. I have never known the stack temp on mine and it burns fine. The computer monitors air inputs. You can adjust this and it works fine once you get the proper setting.

Pipe it to be able to add storage when you can, but it will work fine without it for now. At least you can avoid the oil man. I will be adding 550 gallons of pressurized storage coming up, but I have gotten through this winter so far with no issues.

Just my thougths. Good Luck and happy burning.


----------



## martyinmi

flyingcow said:
			
		

> I do not mean to start a peeing match, but 12 cord won't be far off, if you used 1200 gals. Maybe 10 cord, but that would be about it.


Ok, I'll bite-
   I had a very efficient conventional OWB that I ran for a number of years, and I usually went through 9-12 cords/year. Mid way through last season I made the switch to an Empyre Pro Series 100. My consumption went down to roughly 7.5 or 8 cords for the year(5-6 cords for the first half, 2.5-3 for the second half using the gasifier). Before this burn season, I switched again to the P&M 250. I will not go through 5 cords this year, but it's been very mild. I will go through 6-7 cords/year in an average winter with my gasifier. These are not fictitious numbers pulled out of a hat, they are fact. You need to understand that the technology employed in today's gasifying OWB meets or exceeds what you have. We will lose some heat to the atmosphere, but it is very little. It is a small price to pay to keep the mess,smoke, and insects outdoors where they belong.
   Keep in mind that it is not my intention to start a "peeing match" here. 

   Marty

goose,
   What manufacturer of gasifying OWB's that you know of personally puts only 2-4 inches of insulation in their boilers? It sounds as if you are implying that they all do?


----------



## Gasifier

You say if you went with an indoor model you need either an Econoburn or a Wood Gun. Both are nice boilers. I think you could get into one of those, with a 400 gallon storage tank and installation of system for 12-13,000. Depends on if you can do some of the work, or have friend(s) who can help you out. Getting the boiler and tank into a shed that you are adding onto should not be too difficult. The part that will cost you some extra cash, on top of installation will be getting the underground lines in.  

As far as wood consumption goes, here is a comparison for you. I am heating a 4,000 sq.ft. house, 900 sq.ft. garage, and all our domestic hot water for two adults and four children. I have been through about 16 face cord so far this year. This is a mild winter. I think I will probably finish with 22 face cord. If it were a cold winter, probably 26-27. So, 9 full cord on a cold one would be close. Now, how big is your house, garage, and what do you think your wood usage would be?


----------



## goosegunner

Ok, Marty I can't name boilers and their insulation thickness off the top of my head. Seems to me the centrals have 4" max.

How thick is yours? What type? 

I am sure it is some type that defies the laws of heat loss and temperature differential with the surrounding environment.


Done wasting my time. 

gg


----------



## goosegunner

From the portage and main website,

Unit is very well insulated with breathable R20 fiberglass insulation that will not cause; condensation on the water jacket exterior, crack or gas off. The bottom of the unit is insulated with top quality Roux insulation.


Breathable fiberglass under steel siding usually = air infiltration= heat loss.

Marty I do believe you have a very nice boiler, is it head and shoulders above all others probably not. Does it work for you, yes it sounds like it does very well.

gg


----------



## flyingcow

Marty, I was comparing 1200 gals of oil to cords of wood. What you threw out there isn't the same comparison.  And my figures aren't pulled out of a hat. And you seriously think an OWB gasser will out perform an indoor model? Seems like a stretch.


----------



## flyingcow

I'm with goose on this...I'm done with this. usually don't get down like this on Hearth.


----------



## martyinmi

goose and cow,
   I understand what you guys are trying to achieve. You good folks are obviously very proud of your systems, and you have the desire to share the knowledge you've gathered over the years, and I applaud you for that. I wouldn't expect any less, but I would expect the content of your delivery methods to be more in line with the intent of the thread title. Your set-ups work well for you, and you have achieved your desired goals.
   Please keep in mind that not everyone will employ the the same means as you folks to achieve the same goal(s). In this case, those goals are at bare minimum threefold:
1) Providing heat for family homes.
2) Providing said heat from a machine that burns smoke.
3) Doing the above in a cost effective manner that coincides within space confinements available.
   The individual that started this thread simply wanted to know which gasifying Central Boiler model(1400 or 2400) would work best for his situation. The simple answer is either of them based on his present fuel oil usage.
   This forum is a great place for all interested to get together and share their experiences, as well as taking in a bunch of knowledge. The site moderator does a brilliant job of helping sift out some information that may not be factual by allowing this site to be self policing. It's working well.
   If you have opinions, state them as such. I will not apologize for expecting you back up your opinions with with fact.

   Marty


----------



## EffectaBoilerUser (USA)

I'm making this post knowing that I have to be very careful with what my comments since I am the effecta sales guy for North America.

However, I was taught early on in my Mechanical Engineering school days that everyone has opinions and to listen to non of them when performing an engineering function. I am making an assumption that the original post on this topic constituted an "engineering function".

Thus, I could no longer sit and watch the opinions and partial truths being posted about this topic so hear goes:

Last fall I went to a local CB open house to check out the E-classic in detail and found that the dealer was using/saying/passing around some very confusing and disturbing information (if it is confusing to a Mechanical Engineer I can only imaging how a non-mechanical customer would be confused and probably be "won over" by whatever figure the dealer would tell him). As you will see from the attached photos, its very hard to get an accurate, real idea of the efficiency of these units.

The 1400 E classic is rated for a maximum output of 209,316 BTU/hr., an "8 hour" output of 107,459 BTU/hr, an avg. efficiency (using lower heating values) of 84.2% and an avg. efficiency (using high heating values) of 73.7%

The 2400 E classic is rated for a maximum output of 260,486 BTU/hr and an "8 hour" output of 186,453 BTU/hr., an avg. efficiency (using lower heating values) of 92.6% and an avg. efficiency (using high heating values) of 85.3%

To make matters worse, on the front cover of the CB brochure for these units (in large letters) it reads "97% EPA phase 2 program qualified" and just above this text it reads "E Classic 3200" (I will include this photo in my next post as I am out of file space on this posting).

So, can someone on hearth.com please educate me (and the many others) as to which efficiency is "true". 

I find it very disturbing that these large,"corporate world" companies are allowed to even print this type of documentation.

To make matters worse, when I "played dumb" and asked the CB dealer why there were (3) different efficiencies listed and which one represented the "truth", he responded by saying "I'm not really sure ". Upon further conversation he kept saying "that is what the factory tells me". I am in no way putting the CB dealer down rather I would say that the large company who's products he is representing and selling is playing nothing more than a typical US based "marketing game".

In further conversations with the dealer I continued to "play dumb" and asked the dealer which unit he would recommend for my current situation (heating requirements based on the details found in my hearth.com "signature line") and was told that the 1400 would "probably heat my house/garage, DHW and hot tub but to be certain I may want to purchase the E Classic 2400 model".

On another note, upon doing some more detailed investigation/comparison I discovered a "HUGE" concern/difference when comparing the E Classic boilers to my effecta lambda 35 boiler that is actually heating my house (as of today it has over 2,000 hours of trouble free operation and with one (5) hour burn per day I am able to keep the house at 73F, the DHW at 130F and the hot tub at 104F - GOTTA LOVE THAT!).

The firebox size on the E Classic 1400 is 24,960 cu. in. in volume (24" W x 32.5" H x 32" L) and on the E Classic 2400 it is 40,716 cu. in. in volume (26" W x 43.5" H x 36" L).

The firebox size on my effecta lambda 35kw is 8,084 cu. in (16" W x 23.5" H x 21.5" L) and on the effecta lambda 60kw it is 11,030 cu. in. (19" W x 27" H x 21.5" L).

Thus, the firebox on my effecta lambda 35 is 3 TIMES SMALLER than that of the E Classic 1400 and the effecta lambda 60 fire box is almost 4 TIMES SMALLER than that of the E Classic 2400.

Obviously I have established/formed an engineering conclusion based on this whole boiler comparison situation but I will let everyone come up with their own conclusion based on the FACTS I have presented in this post.

I hope the statement of the above FACTS has helped everyone understand better the difficulties one faces when trying to purchase the "biggest bang for the buck" with regards to biomass burning boilers.

Brian


----------



## EffectaBoilerUser (USA)

As promised, here is a photo of the front cover of the CB E Classic boiler brochure showing the 97% efficient statement.

Once again, I hope this helps to clarify this situation.

Brian


----------



## EffectaBoilerUser (USA)

I almost forgot- here is the page in the CB E Classic brochure which shows the fire box size along with the size of the fire box on the effecta lambda 35 and 60 kw boilers.

Brian


----------



## EffectaBoilerUser (USA)

Attached please see the dimensions of the effecta lambda 35 and 60 kw fireboxes.

I believe with this document that 100% of everything I have presented and discussed on this topic has been backed up with the extremely accurate FACTS and supporting documentation.

Brian


----------



## martyinmi

Brian,
   Thanks for pointing those inconsistencies out. I noticed the disparities quite a while back also, and me being me, I asked why they were there, and how can they be explained away, and the answer that I received was as follows:

   "The 97% efficiency rating pertains to the combustion efficiency as far as the units ability to completely burn available flammable gasses present during gasification". 

   I'm not impressed with that type of advertising at all, and it sounds like you are not either. In CB's defense, I will also comment that every manufacturer out there(whether American,Canadian,or European,both indoor and outdoor gasifiers) who publish literature that I have taken the time to read all publish efficiency statistics that are misleading at best. An honest marketing strategist employed by any manufacturer appears to be an exception, not a rule.

   I see that you have taken the high road on your site by giving your personal realistic efficiency ratings(80-85%) as opposed to going with your manufacturers inflated ratings(90%). Kudos to you for that. You would be a trustworthy dealer.  

   All that being said, which unit(1400 or 2400) do you suppose might serve Massheat the best? (I am trying to stay on topic and be helpful without hijacking)


----------



## Mass Heat

Brian, What would estimate the price of your system to be? As you probably are aware Mass supposedly does not allow non ASME stamped units for pressurized setups. Trying to get approval from the town, but if not successful my options are limited. For the record I appreciate all the input, especially real life experiences.


----------



## stee6043

EffectaBoilerUser (USA) said:
			
		

> I'm making this post knowing that I have to be very careful with what my comments since I am the effecta sales guy for North America.
> 
> 
> Thus, the firebox on my effecta lambda 35 is 3 TIMES SMALLER than that of the E Classic 1400 and the effecta lambda 60 fire box is almost 4 TIMES SMALLER than that of the E Classic 2400.
> 
> Brian



  I suspect the mechanical engineering gods would prefer you say "one third the size" as opposed to three times smaller.  Don't want to confuse the laypeople!

  Good post, nonetheless.  Comparing sizes of the fireboxes with output and "efficiency claims" is a great idea.  Especially when talking about "high efficiency" boilers.  Everyone knows efficiency is killed when a boiler idles.  And having a half cord capacity on your boiler firebox can only mean one thing...more idling...in most cases.


----------



## wishiwasfishingguy

effecta sales guy,

I'm going to be careful too, but I take offense to your grandstanding!  When I purchased my E Classic, I was shown the numbers right off the EPA's website.  They aren't made up numbers, they were right there along with all the other companies that tested under the EPA's test methods, for a true side by side model comparison.  I used this data in my research of these furnaces and it was a factor in my decision to purchase the E Classic.   I am now on my 4th winter and couldn't be more satisfied!   Is yours tested to the same EPA standard??  I also preferred to keep my 3,500 square foot house and garage heated with a wood furnace that sits outside, no mess inside and I also didn't want to give up one stall in my garage to a gigantic storage tank.  You might want to check your "FACTS" before making such "partial truth" accusations!


----------



## Como

The EPA standard they pulled as they acknowledged it was flawed?

They were effectively made up numbers.


----------



## huffdawg

I dont find Brians posts  "Grandstanding"   I  find them quite informative,  also it looks like he spends quite some time doing his research.Does anyone  that reads his posts have to buy an Effecta Lambda 35. "NO".  I  am so glad I stumbled across this site and did spend quite some time researching otherwise I might of bought a smoke house and my neighbours would of scalped me .


----------



## flyingcow

I agree, he wasn't grand standing. just being helpful.


----------



## martyinmi

Brian was doing a bit of grandstanding, and you all know it. He was pointing out inconsistencies that are apparent from a competing manufacturer. Hopefully everyone can see the same inconsistencies his product's manufacturer has claimed and that he himself has disproved.

huffdawg,
   I'll wager that with your system you have more of a smoke(in the) house than fishing guy does.


----------



## goosegunner

Marty,

What part of Michigan are you from? City?

Anywhere near any Effecta installs?

gg


----------



## martyinmi

I am in the middle of the lower peninsula, 20 minutes north of Lansing. I would have no idea if there are any Effecta installs near me. I have seen Wood Gun and an Empyre install, and I am impressed. I would love to see an install with a lot of mass storage(1000+ gallons). I would like to have a small indoor storage tank just for DHW in the summer months. 
   Are you in MI? If you are, I'd like to see your set-up sometime.


----------



## Karl_northwind

We all (contractors and installers) deal with products where the advertising and marketing guys compete with the engineering staff to have the "right" numbers published on the literature.  From the engineering side, the "right" number is the numbers we can expect to see in the real world, and from the marketing side, it's whatever the best number is that you can put on the literature and not have enough pissed off customers to cause a backlash or lawsuit.   It's the part of a responsible dealer/distributor/installer to be able to give the best available information to the end consumer. 
Unfortunately, the manufacturer usually puts all the literature/website info together, and they don't have to deal with the informed end user like the folks on this list. 
and all the other manufacturers do the same thing as far as publishing the "best of all possible worlds" data, so the manufacturer that publishes real world numbers is punished in the marketplace of moderately to minimally informed consumers who look at price and the published efficiency numbers with no knowledge of what's behind them. 
Great list, I'm learning lots. 

BTW there are a handful of Effecta installs in the upper lower MI.  

karl


----------



## goosegunner

martyinmi said:
			
		

> I am in the middle of the lower peninsula, 20 minutes north of Lansing. I would have no idea if there are any Effecta installs near me. I have seen Wood Gun and an Empyre install, and I am impressed. I would love to see an install with a lot of mass storage(1000+ gallons). I would like to have a small indoor storage tank just for DHW in the summer months.
> Are you in MI? If you are, I'd like to see your set-up sometime.




No I am in WI, but if you were ever near by I would be glad to show you.

One of my friends who runs a heatmor OWB uses a buffer tank in his basement. It seems to work and gives him a reserve in the house because he has. 350' run one way.


You wouldn't happen to be the Portage and Main dealer in the town north of Lansing would you?

gg


----------



## ALASKAPF185

wishiwasfishingguy said:
			
		

> effecta sales guy,
> 
> I'm going to be careful too, but I take offense to your grandstanding!  When I purchased my E Classic, I was shown the numbers right off the EPA's website.  They aren't made up numbers, they were right there along with all the other companies that tested under the EPA's test methods, for a true side by side model comparison.  I used this data in my research of these furnaces and it was a factor in my decision to purchase the E Classic.   I am now on my 4th winter and couldn't be more satisfied!   Is yours tested to the same EPA standard??  I also preferred to keep my 3,500 square foot house and garage heated with a wood furnace that sits outside, no mess inside and I also didn't want to give up one stall in my garage to a gigantic storage tank.  You might want to check your "FACTS" before making such "partial truth" accusations!



Wow talk about uninformed " UN truths" ....

Its not grandstanding when you can back it up. Its funny when you see these giant piles of wood and huge OWB's when the same house can be heated with an "engineered " (hydronic heating engineer) system using half the wood and footprint. If there is no ASME/IBR plate rating on the unit then it can make any claim it wants. They also can write their own test procedure in a way so that any number they claim is actually correct or "FACT" as some would like to believe. As long as they can pay the EPA enuff money to accept their procedure, it will be approved as such. I know cause I have first hand knowledge. Its funny how that little 35 kw boiler or 120kbtu can heat a huge home. 5000 square is alot, and I've seen many other examples from properly piped and designed systems with great efficiency. Most boilers are oversized, and I'll go out on a limb and say close to 90% of them, other than those that are newer and used a heatloss to size, instead of the IBR plate method ( sizing the new boiler by what the old boiler size was). I wonder how many OWB salesmen use HL's to size systems and explain what it means to the customer. You don't have to size this way as long as you understand why. But this should be a part of the HO's decision.

You can have the best high efficiency equipment on the market, but if its not installed correct its worse than a properly installed piece of junk. There are alot of requirements to achieve claimed ratings and when it comes to anything over 80% you only have to miss 1 to ruin it.  There's burn efficiency, system effiency, and the big one, its ability to transfer energy from fuel to usable BTU's. Most are just claiming burn, since smoke and emissions is the big concern for the softies.

Back to the OP, 94K heatloss is huge, which would mean that on cold days that conventional boiler never shuts off and probably has a had time keeping up even on a mild day. For example a 4000 sqft 100+ year old farm house with zero insulation or single pane windows. I would start with a HLoss if you haven't done one yet. Then also include what you "PLAN" on heating also. Have a diagram of your system , and then you should be able to get a somewhat accurate idea of what fits you best. If a salesman shoots a model size off the hip, without this info, then thats all you have.

Atleast everyone has good intentions, when they are trying to help.


----------



## huffdawg

martyinmi said:
			
		

> Brian was doing a bit of grandstanding, and you all know it. He was pointing out inconsistencies that are apparent from a competing manufacturer. Hopefully everyone can see the same inconsistencies his product's manufacturer has claimed and that he himself has disproved.
> 
> huffdawg,
> I'll wager that with your system you have more of a smoke(in the) house than fishing guy does.



You lose and you can send me a case of beer(and not lite beer)...LoL..The only smoke I get in my house is from 2 of my neighbours that have wood stoves.It gets sucked into my HRV if the winds are blowing the right way.  I can tell when they put wood in there stoves and then damp them down so they can put smoke more efficiently into the neighbourhood air.

When someone is said to be â€œgrandstanding,â€ it means that he or she is putting on an ostentatious performance with the goal of impressing people, and that the performance includes a great deal of exaggeration. Essentially, someone is putting on a show when he or she is grandstanding, often to the detriment of the message that he or she is trying to convey. A wide number of people can be accused of grandstanding; generally, any public figure who abuses his or her position to get a point across may be considered to be grandstanding, and private citizens who indulge in a bit of hyperbole may also find themselves accused of grandstanding.

The term references a grandstand, a large amphitheater used for performances. The idea is that when people perform in an amphitheater, they are forced to over-act so that they can be seen by people in the upper levels; without being extremely vocal and obvious, the nuances of the performance might be miss. When someone is accused of grandstanding, it means that a show is being put on which is perhaps a bit too excessive for the venue.

Often, grandstanding involves a great deal of exaggeration, often out of a genuine desire to promote a cause with passion. Grandstanding techniques can also be used in an attempt to intimidate people; for example, a prosecutor might grandstand in the hopes of cowing a witness on the stand, or to encourage a suspect to consider making a plea, rather than going to court.

After reading this definition . I find Brian "NOT GUILTY" of grandstanding.

Huff


----------



## Gasifier

Okay guys. That will be enough argueing. Or I am going to have to delete this thread all together. Oh, wait. That's right. I'm not a moderator.  :lol: 
What was I thinking? Alright then. Stop acting like children. You never see me behaving like that on Hearth.com.  :roll: Oh, wait. That's right. Okay. Alright already. I'm sorry IseeDeadBTUs, Fred61. I mean it. I love you guys man! I mean men. A-hem. Hey, how do you turn this cool smiley thing off?!


----------



## martyinmi

huffdawg,
   I like the definition of "grandstanding" you choose from your google search. It came from wisegeek.com, almost word for word. It is fitting.  
goose,
   Thanks for the invite. I WILL take you up on it if I'm ever in your neighborhood.
   I am not a P&M dealer. We received a dealer discount because three of us each bought a 250. There is no way I could ever make the time to sell OWB's and still fulfill my obligations to my family and my job.
   karl,
   Who would I get a hold of to see one in action before the warmer weather sets in? I'm not interested in the boiler, but the Lamda controller sounds pretty cool. I've inquired about the costs associated with incorporating one into my system, but as of yet no one has PM'd me.

   Thanks,

   Marty

Edit- gasifier, you are a nut. Too funny :lol:


----------



## Como

If you ever get to Colorado come and see me.


----------



## Armaton

Marty,

After reading your posts on how happy you were with your P&M 250, I watched the video on it and was curious about cost and availability. So I called P&M to get some info on them. They gave me the name and phone number for a Marty Felpaush, from St. John's, MI. as the closest dealer to me that I could get literature and order a boiler from. If that is you, you may want to contact P&M to correct their error!

Armaton


----------



## Gasifier

Como said:
			
		

> If you ever get to Colorado come and see me.



Well thank you Como. I would really like to see those Garns and your hotel. Oh, wait. Was that invite for me?


----------



## huffdawg

Gasifier said:
			
		

> Como said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ever get to Colorado come and see me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you Como. I would really like to see those Garns and your hotel. Oh, wait. Was that invite for me?
Click to expand...


It does look like there is a bit of beer tipping  going on at the Como Hotel by looking at your blog. Next time I come to Colorado i'd like to come see whats on tap!  I mean have a look at your twin Garns.

Huff


----------



## martyinmi

Armaton said:
			
		

> Marty,
> 
> After reading your posts on how happy you were with your P&M 250, I watched the video on it and was curious about cost and availability. So I called P&M to get some info on them. They gave me the name and phone number for a Marty Felpaush, from St. John's, MI. as the closest dealer to me that I could get literature and order a boiler from. If that is you, you may want to contact P&M to correct their error!
> 
> Armaton


That is me. They don't refer potential customers to me, mainly just people who are having a hard time grasping the gasification process. I try to dissuade people from buying conventional OWB's while explaining the benefits of gasifyers.

   There is a large "Supercenter" in our state that currently sells P&M boilers, as well as three other brands, and to my knowledge they are the only dealer here.

   If you are serious about the cost and availability of a 250, send me a pm and I'll be sure that the proper guys get forwarded the information, or call the number and P&M will send you a price quote. If you don't understand the gasification process, include your telephone number and I'll do my best to explain it to you. If I can't help you, I have friends who sell Central Boiler and Empyre OWB's who will be able to help.


----------



## EffectaBoilerUser (USA)

Marty,

Maybe you should change you signature line to: "Working with Portage and Maine company to help educate and sell P&M products".

By doing so would help other hearth.com members better understand why you are saying what you saying in your posts.

Know that we all know that you are working closely with P & M (as is evidenced by the most recent post) it all makes sense!

Brian


----------



## goosegunner

EffectaBoilerUser (USA) said:
			
		

> Marty,
> 
> Maybe you should change you signature line to: "Working with Portage and Maine company to help educate and sell P&M products".
> 
> By doing so would help other hearth.com members better understand why you are saying what you saying in your posts.
> 
> Know that we all know that you are working closely with P & M (as is evidenced by the most recent post) it all makes sense!
> 
> Brian



Seems fair considering the remarks that have been tossed at Brian and others on the site that have chosen systems besides the OWB gasifier.

gg


----------



## martyinmi

Brian, 
   That is a very good idea. I'll have to re-word what you've suggested it to make it a bit more accurate. I'll throw Central Boiler and Empyre in there also, as I've made positive comments about their products also. I've spoken quite highly about Garn in the past too, so they should probably be thrown in the mix. Thank You for the suggestion! And I'm not being sarcastic-seriously, Thank You!

Edit-Updated my signature to include all of my running saws and splitter brand also. Thanks again Brian


----------



## flyingcow

You sound a little sarcastic Marty....funny man.

 From the few CB boilers I've seen, the P and M are quite a few levels above the CB line. But on the P&M's all I've seen are the videos. Looks to be closer to a true gasser than the E-Classic.


----------



## huffdawg

[Armaton[/quote]
That is me. They don't refer potential customers to me, mainly just people who are having a hard time grasping the gasification process. I try to dissuade people from buying conventional OWB's while explaining the benefits of gasifyers.

There is a large "Supercenter" in our state that currently sells P&M boilers, as well as three other brands, and to my knowledge they are the only dealer here.

If you are serious about the cost and availability of a 250, send me a pm and I'll be sure that the proper guys get forwarded the information, or call the number and P&M will send you a price quote. If you don't understand the gasification process, include your telephone number and I'll do my best to explain it to you. If I can't help you, I have friends who sell Central Boiler and Empyre OWB's who will be able to help.[/quote]

Seems like a highly sophisticated form of grandstanding incognitoism I suspect.


----------



## martyinmi

Huff,
   You're giving me way too much credit. There isn't too much about me that's highly sophisticated. Grandstanding? Well, maybe a bit. Incognitoism? That mass of letters doesn't form a word.
   The bottom line is this: You are finally understanding the points I've been trying to illustrate. That proves that my "highly sophisticated form of grandstanding while remaining in a state of perpetual incognito" is paying off!


----------



## Gasifier

March 15th is coming Tim.  :lol:


----------



## goosegunner

martyinmi said:
			
		

> That proves that my "highly sophisticated form of grandstanding while remaining in a state of perpetual incognito" is paying off!




Is that the same as "The deception of posting as a overly satisfied homeowner instead of a dealer/consultant"

In retrospect most home users will state the likes and dislikes of their boiler.

gg


----------



## Mass Heat

Gasifier said:
			
		

> March 15th is coming Tim.  :lol:



Oh I know, trust me! Just had an experienced mechanical engineer at the house, so he could quote me on a install.


----------



## Gasifier

Do you have electrical already in the shed where the boiler will be going?


----------



## Mass Heat

Nope, electric needs to be brought out. Electrician was here as well.


----------



## woodsmaster

martyinmi said:
			
		

> flyingcow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mean to start a peeing match, but 12 cord won't be far off, if you used 1200 gals. Maybe 10 cord, but that would be about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll bite-
> I had a very efficient conventional OWB that I ran for a number of years, and I usually went through 9-12 cords/year. Mid way through last season I made the switch to an Empyre Pro Series 100. My consumption went down to roughly 7.5 or 8 cords for the year(5-6 cords for the first half, 2.5-3 for the second half using the gasifier). Before this burn season, I switched again to the P&M 250. I will not go through 5 cords this year, but it's been very mild. I will go through 6-7 cords/year in an average winter with my gasifier. These are not fictitious numbers pulled out of a hat, they are fact. *You need to understand that the technology employed in today's gasifying OWB meets or exceeds what you have*. We will lose some heat to the atmosphere, but it is very little. It is a small price to pay to keep the mess,smoke, and insects outdoors where they belong.
> Keep in mind that it is not my intention to start a "peeing match" here.
> 
> Marty
> 
> goose,
> What manufacturer of gasifying OWB's that you know of personally puts only 2-4 inches of insulation in their boilers? It sounds as if you are implying that they all do?
Click to expand...


 What did they do that makes it more efficient than flyingcows tarm ?


----------



## willworkforwood

Mass Heat said:
			
		

> ... Just had an experienced mechanical engineer at the house, so he could quote me on a install.


I don't have enough time, or hip boots tall enough to wade through all the muck in this thread to figure out which boiler you've decided on, so I'll just ask you to re-post what you're planning to buy, and the install location.


----------



## Mass Heat

Leaning towards wood gun at this point. Couple of differences that make the most sense for me. Larger fire box, SS, 10% off, larger built in water capacity, less critical chimney install and better performing unit without storage. However, the Econoburn is a tough unit to pass up on. Especially with the responsiveness from the OEM.


----------



## huffdawg

Mass Heat said:
			
		

> Leaning towards wood gun at this point. Couple of differences that make the most sense for me. Larger fire box, SS, 10% off, larger built in water capacity, less critical chimney install and better performing unit without storage. However, the Econoburn is a tough unit to pass up on. Especially with the responsiveness from the OEM.



What is a Mechanial Engineers rate per hour MH.   Will he let you assist him to save money.  The more you can do yourself the better unless you have other commitments of course. Are you planning storage.

Huff


----------



## stee6043

huffdawg said:
			
		

> Mass Heat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaning towards wood gun at this point. Couple of differences that make the most sense for me. Larger fire box, SS, 10% off, larger built in water capacity, less critical chimney install and better performing unit without storage. However, the Econoburn is a tough unit to pass up on. Especially with the responsiveness from the OEM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Mechanial Engineers rate per hour MH.   Will he let you assist him to save money.  The more you can do yourself the better unless you have other commitments of course. Are you planning storage.
> 
> Huff
Click to expand...


A mechanical engineer who is not a Professional Engineer (PE, state licensed, with a seal) might as well be an accountant.  Mechanical engineers are a dime a dozen, PE's are not.  I believe in most states you can't actually sell your services to the general public as "engineering services" if you are not a PE.  If an engineer cannot legally seal the drawings and plans you are buying from them you are wasting your money.  You can call it what it is at that point - expensive advice to be followed at your own risk.

HVAC guys are licensed and insured.  PE's are licensed and insured.  Plain ole engineers may know a lot or a little but they are not experts in anything by default.


----------



## Gasifier

My installers worked for a local HVAC company in a small village of about 10,000 people. One had a two year technical degree in HVAC, the other a one year certificate in HVAC. Both are smart guys. I had no leaks in my system at all, and everything works as it should. I suppose a few things could have been improved upon, but I can not complain. Make sure you know what you want and how you want it done before you hire the installers.


----------



## huffdawg

[  Plain ole engineers may know a lot or a little but they are not experts in anything by default.[/quote]
I'm a plain ole marine engineer  I know a little about a whole lot.    :lol: 

Huff


----------



## flyingcow

woodsmaster said:
			
		

> martyinmi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flyingcow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mean to start a peeing match, but 12 cord won't be far off, if you used 1200 gals. Maybe 10 cord, but that would be about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll bite-
> I had a very efficient conventional OWB that I ran for a number of years, and I usually went through 9-12 cords/year. Mid way through last season I made the switch to an Empyre Pro Series 100. My consumption went down to roughly 7.5 or 8 cords for the year(5-6 cords for the first half, 2.5-3 for the second half using the gasifier). Before this burn season, I switched again to the P&M 250. I will not go through 5 cords this year, but it's been very mild. I will go through 6-7 cords/year in an average winter with my gasifier. These are not fictitious numbers pulled out of a hat, they are fact. *You need to understand that the technology employed in today's gasifying OWB meets or exceeds what you have*. We will lose some heat to the atmosphere, but it is very little. It is a small price to pay to keep the mess,smoke, and insects outdoors where they belong.
> Keep in mind that it is not my intention to start a "peeing match" here.
> 
> Marty
> 
> goose,
> What manufacturer of gasifying OWB's that you know of personally puts only 2-4 inches of insulation in their boilers? It sounds as if you are implying that they all do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they do that makes it more efficient than flyingcows tarm ?
Click to expand...


I had a hard time being preached to from someone that(supposedly) had the resources to buy 2 OWB's in one year. But before that actually had the balls to say he had "a very efficient OWB" before the last two he bought? And then to explain that his OWB "meets or exceeds what i have"? delusional at best.  But, ironically I am impressed(with the videos) of the P&M OWB's. Which we find out that is what he's selling. these OWB's look like they have something serious to offer the gassification crowd.

And by the way, if i was in the same region as Brian(the Effecta dealer) I would buy a boiler from him. HE SPEAKS OF FACTS, no BS..... he represents his business very well........I am trying to look for a grandstand to stand on and speak my mind....where is it.....?  ;-)


----------



## goosegunner

woodsmaster said:
			
		

> What did they do that makes it more efficient than flyingcows tarm ?



I think it might be the R20 insulation around the water jacket sitting outside.


All kidding aside I do like the Portage and Main Gasifier. Especially the way it is set up to clean, which incidentally is the biggest complaint I have about my Econoburn.

gg


----------



## woodsmaster

I also like the Portage and Main from what I've seen. There are a few small isues i've heard of but nothing to get to worried about.
I just dont see that any outdoor gasser is going to be more efficient than an indoor one. I'm not implying that an indoor boiler is for every one either.


----------



## Noggah

Hey Massheat,

How is the search going. I've been following the thread, which got a little off topic, but with good intentions I think. Just wondering if you came to a final decision. You won't regret it no matter which you choose. Alot of work, but worth it in the end. Especially the way things are headed.


----------



## Gasifier

15-5=10 Mass


----------



## Mass Heat

Noggah said:
			
		

> Hey Massheat,
> 
> How is the search going. I've been following the thread, which got a little off topic, but with good intentions I think. Just wondering if you came to a final decision. You won't regret it no matter which you choose. Alot of work, but worth it in the end. Especially the way things are headed.



Waiting on a quote for a Wood gun install. If the quote is reasonable, I plan on going this route. If the quote comes in too high, I'll revisit the CB 1450, which is now EPA approved. I plan on making my decision by March 15th.


----------



## Noggah

Awesome, Keep up the good fight.


----------



## martyinmi

Mass Heat,
   First time I've checked this thread in a few days. I played a role in the highjacking of your thread. Sorry about that. I'll start my own thread in the future.

   Marty


----------



## heaterman

wishiwasfishingguy said:
			
		

> effecta sales guy,
> 
> I'm going to be careful too, but I take offense to your grandstanding!  When I purchased my E Classic, I was shown the numbers right off the EPA's website.  They aren't made up numbers, they were right there along with all the other companies that tested under the EPA's test methods, for a true side by side model comparison.  I used this data in my research of these furnaces and it was a factor in my decision to purchase the E Classic.   I am now on my 4th winter and couldn't be more satisfied!   Is yours tested to the same EPA standard??  I also preferred to keep my 3,500 square foot house and garage heated with a wood furnace that sits outside, no mess inside and I also didn't want to give up one stall in my garage to a gigantic storage tank.  You might want to check your "FACTS" before making such "partial truth" accusations!



The sad truth of the matter regarding the EPA test protocol is that it is not worth the paper it is printed on. 

The test method bears no resemblance to real world conditions or operation. For example, who of you use kiln dried 4x4 sawn red oak, cribbed and nailed together when you load your stove? That is what the EPA test used. No bark, no variation in loading, no variation in size, no dirt, no debris of any kind. It's lumberyard quality wood, not firewood. That alone skews the results far toward the "clean" side of the spectrum. 

There were so many discrepancies in the test results that EPA pulled the efficiency ratings from their website. Manufacturers were claiming efficiency that defied the laws of physics saying their units were reaching 90%+ when routine stack loss measurements indicated less than 50%.

I would not advise anyone to use the EPA White label or Yellow label as an indication of actual performance. It is very much a buyer beware market yet.


----------



## wishiwasfishingguy

Good news was I did get to go fishing over an extended weekend with my son and he caught another trophy walleye! Just logged in and see I must have struck a nerve with a few folks and that was not the intention.  Maybe I should have said to effecta salesguy "get off the dang soapbox" instead of grandstanding....I didn't google that definition.  Call it what you want.  In the end we all want to avoid that gas man filling our tanks!  Anyway, it just struck me wrong and I took it personal.  I had a traditional outdoor wood furnace that went through 15 cord plus. Now I keep the house PLUS my 3 stall garage at 50 degrees and i've cut that down to 5-7 annually over the last 4 years.  Pretty easy to stay a year ahead on my wood suppy (nice and dry) plus I can keep all my vehicles and the boat and toys in my garage.  As for emissions, my friend who lives in town wanted to put an E Classic to his house and he had to go to the council to get approval and permit.  They, including the city inspector and superintendant were concerned about smoke.  Well, 3 years later they had to replace a power line on the block of town he lives on and they had forgot he had a wood furnace...that says something for real world.  Bottom line is that this new stove is a definite improvement.


----------



## leeeallen

Massheat- have you looked into the Profab 200 or 400. I have been very satisfied with my 400.


----------



## Mass Heat

[/quote]

Waiting on a quote for a Wood gun install. If the quote is reasonable, I plan on going this route. If the quote comes in too high, I'll revisit the CB 1450, which is now EPA approved. I plan on making my decision by March 15th.[/quote]

Well the quote came in high. $7000 for the install. Add another $2k for the chimney and shed addition and the project is quickly exceeding my original budget. May need to revisit my options.


----------



## Mass Heat

MEHEAT said:
			
		

> Massheat- have you looked into the Profab 200 or 400. I have been very satisfied with my 400.



I checked them out online. Seems like a nice unit. I like a couple of the features. Seems like the gassifications temps are achieved, like the low stack temp and the chimney cap option. I have a dealer within 1.5 hours and I'm thinking that it would be a good idea to check them out.


----------



## leeeallen

Good luck - there is a dealer in S Maine as well - that's where I bought mine. If you need info, let me know - the owner was easy to deal with.


----------



## Gasifier

Waiting on a quote for a Wood gun install. If the quote is reasonable, I plan on going this route. If the quote comes in too high, I'll revisit the CB 1450, which is now EPA approved. I plan on making my decision by March 15th.[/quote]

Well the quote came in high. $7000 for the install. Add another $2k for the chimney and shed addition and the project is quickly exceeding my original budget. May need to revisit my options.[/quote]

$7000 just for the install? Holy sh!t. Sounds like the installer wants to make some serious cash. I got my install done for $4000. A hair over $3000 for all the piping, pumps, fittings, etc. etc. $970 for labor. These two guys work for an HVAC company and did the job for me "on the side". If you ask around maybe you could find someone like that. Mass, for whatever boiler you chose, look around at different installation options. Sometimes you can find a younger guy, someone who has a good reputation, and is looking to make some extra money outside of his job. As long as you tell him how you want it, he should be able to do it and make you happy. Just a suggestion.


----------



## stee6043

Gasifier said:
			
		

> $7000 just for the install? Holy sh!t. Sounds like the installer wants to make some serious cash. I got my install done for $4000. A hair over $3000 for all the piping, pumps, fittings, etc. etc. $970 for labor. These two guys work for an HVAC company and did the job for me "on the side". If you ask around maybe you could find someone like that. Mass, For whatever boiler you chose, look around at different installation options. Sometimes you can find a younger guy, someone who has a good reputation, and is looking to make some extra money outside of his job. As long as you tell him how you want it, he should be able to do it and make you happy. Just a suggestion.



The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me.  An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high.  I assume for most people "on the side" means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid.  It's all in the risk/reward tradeoff.

For what it's worth I wouldn't recommend folks make public record of their "on the side" dealings.  Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to.


----------



## Mass Heat

stee6043 said:
			
		

> The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me.  An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high.  I assume for most people "on the side" means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid.  It's all in the risk/reward tradeoff.
> 
> For what it's worth I wouldn't recommend folks make public record of their "on the side" dealings.  Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to.



For the record, the "on the side" reference is being pursued and will include all the necessary permits. I'm pulling them and the electrician and plumber will need to be licensed. The original quote was based on 80 hours labor at $30 to 35 an hour. The Problem I have is that the plumber came by and stated he could do the tie in a day tops. Same with the electrician.


----------



## Gasifier

The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me.  An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high.  I assume for most people â€œon the sideâ€ means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid.  Itâ€™s all in the risk/reward tradeoff
For what itâ€™s worth I wouldnâ€™t recommend folks make public record of their â€œon the sideâ€ dealings.  Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to. 

Stee,

Wooo. Slow down a bit Stee. Never said no permit, no insurance. I am covered. Doing everything above the board is a good idea. But let's be realistic. There are a ton of guys on here who have done there own installs. That does not mean they are not covered by insurance or did not get a building permit. As long as you meet the building code and have insurance coverage. I will watch out for those local authorities those.  ;-P


----------



## stee6043

Gasifier said:
			
		

> The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me.  An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high.  I assume for most people â€œon the sideâ€ means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid.  Itâ€™s all in the risk/reward tradeoff
> For what itâ€™s worth I wouldnâ€™t recommend folks make public record of their â€œon the sideâ€ dealings.  Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to.
> 
> Stee,
> 
> Wooo. Slow down a bit Stee. Never said no permit, no insurance. I am covered. Doing everything above the board is a good idea. But let's be realistic. There are a ton of guys on here who have done there own installs. That does not mean they are not covered by insurance or did not get a building permit. As long as you meet the building code and have insurance coverage. I will watch out for those local authorities those.  ;-P



Gas, I'm referring to the liability insurance a contractor "on the clock" would carry and the licenses and taxes he'd be required to obtain and pay. A homeowner can legally do work in his own home but only licensed contractors can legally do work at others homes and charge for it. And when they do they pay taxes, maintain insurance and charge accordingly.


----------



## huffdawg

Its $85 an hour for a plumber or heating contractor in my neck of the woods .   It usually works out to half the cost of the materials in the end.


----------



## heaterman

To the opening poster.

FWIW......I just spoke with a customer today who was referred to me by the CB dealer. The customer has an EPA tagged CB that has accumulated over $5,500 in repairs not covered by the warranty. It is at the end of its fourth (that's 4th) heating season. He found out, like so many others that the warranty is not worth the paper it is printed on. The unit, which I am guessing is a first production EPA model, has had numerous control board failures and CB refused to honor any of them citing customer mis-use. (how one mis-uses a control panel would need further clarification in my book)       He has also experienced several other problems with it and now it was losing 25 gallons of water per week. CB refuses to do anything about that claiming they have no proof that the customer maintained the proper chemistry in the water even after the dealer himself told the factory that the customer faithfully purchased treatment from him every year, and has the receipts to prove it. Their response was that the customer should ship the unit back to Minnesota (at his expense) and allow CB to make a determination of the failure. 
As you can guess the customer basically said "SCREW YOU"....(not his exact words but this is a family forum after all).
 Needless to say he is done with CB in any way shape or form. The customer told me he is taking the CB to the local scrap yard and having it crushed, then putting it on a pallet and actually returning it to CB. To say he is angry would be the understatement of the decade.

Now here's the part you and anyone else considering one, need to know about CB boilers with the foam insulation........

 Upon deciding he was done with trying to get anywhere with CB, the owner took the jacket off the unit and stripped off the foam to see what was going on with the leak. He discovered that the unit had corroded through in several spots. Now pay attention because this is the dirty little secret on CB's from what I can tell..........._the corrosion was obviously coming from the outside in_   rather than coming from the water side out. Apparently the foam traps moisture against the skin of the boiler or else there is poor surface prep done before the foam is applied and allows corrosion to attack the steel from the outer surface. I have seen this type of corrosion on CB's too often over the years to think it is just an isolated incident. In none of the cases did CB cover any of the damage to, or the failure of the boiler.

As for the dealer, I feel sorry for the guy. He just purchased the inventory and business of the previous guy who handled them here in my area and has no idea what the history of the company is when it comes to warranty. To my knowledge, the old dealer told him nothing about any of the problem units that he had out in the field or the fact that CB basically refuses to honor very few, if any, claims submitted for warranty consideration. 

I would sooner tell someone to build a boiler themselves than buy anything made by CB.

The owner of the CB would likely be glad to talk with anyone here regarding his experience and I can probably get you his phone number if you would like to speak with him.


----------



## Mass Heat

BM, thank you for the post regarding your encounter with the CB issue. Im not a big fan of the pro rated warranty, never mind a warranty that won't be honored.


----------



## samuel

heaterman said:
			
		

> wishiwasfishingguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> effecta sales guy,
> 
> I'm going to be careful too, but I take offense to your grandstanding!  When I purchased my E Classic, I was shown the numbers right off the EPA's website.  They aren't made up numbers, they were right there along with all the other companies that tested under the EPA's test methods, for a true side by side model comparison.  I used this data in my research of these furnaces and it was a factor in my decision to purchase the E Classic.   I am now on my 4th winter and couldn't be more satisfied!   Is yours tested to the same EPA standard??  I also preferred to keep my 3,500 square foot house and garage heated with a wood furnace that sits outside, no mess inside and I also didn't want to give up one stall in my garage to a gigantic storage tank.  You might want to check your "FACTS" before making such "partial truth" accusations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth of the matter regarding the EPA test protocol is that it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
> 
> The test method bears no resemblance to real world conditions or operation. For example, who of you use kiln dried 4x4 sawn red oak, cribbed and nailed together when you load your stove? That is what the EPA test used. No bark, no variation in loading, no variation in size, no dirt, no debris of any kind. It's lumberyard quality wood, not firewood. That alone skews the results far toward the "clean" side of the spectrum.
> 
> There were so many discrepancies in the test results that EPA pulled the efficiency ratings from their website. Manufacturers were claiming efficiency that defied the laws of physics saying their units were reaching 90%+ when routine stack loss measurements indicated less than 50%.
> 
> I would not advise anyone to use the EPA White label or Yellow label as an indication of actual performance. It is very much a buyer beware market yet.
Click to expand...



I liked to read some of the threads but this one makes me mad.  Heaterman - please STOP commenting on the EPA Test Method(s) because it appears you DO NOT have a clue!  You sound like an anti-wood burning activist who feeds that garbage through their cyber balkanist sites.  First - OWB manufacturer's started a process in ASTM to develop a test method for particulate matter emissions and efficiency in 2004 - the ASTM process then involves other manufacturers, test laboratories, EPA, State agencies, and any other interested parties to develop it - hence a consensus process.  The STATES essentially forced the EPA to take a draft method (draft 4) of the ASTM process and implement it to start the voluntary program in January 2007 - called EPA Method 28 OWHH.  Later the ASTM process finished by passing draft 12 in 2008 - ASTM E2618.  So in the meantime - an unfinished draft method gets shoved down the manufacturer's throats and in order to qualify an OWB - manufacturers used independent labs that tested to the Method *they were required to* use to qualify an OWB.  Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading?  By the way - the reason that the ASTM process took 4 years is because the States could not make up their mind regarding cribwood or cordwood and what species of wood would be used.  When the test methods came for indoor stoves, essentially from the Oregon wood stove laws, Oregon had chose douglas fir - softwoods in the N.W.  The N.E. States involved in the OWB process chose oak.   

Yes EPA Method 28 OWHH was revised and approved in August or so of 2011 to make results more accurate (requiring more moisture content readings, measurements from the boiler side to the load side, etc.) but the general requirements stayed the same.  Measurements from the boilers side to the load side were already being done and only required recalculations were needed.   

Did you know that EPA Test Method 28 (indoor woodstove method) uses dimensional lumber with spacers for testing?   Why is it required that 4by4 cribwood with spacers be used????  Because the States demanded it and because the States want "worst case" scenario PM emission results and they believe they get it this way.   However, the most important reason this fueling requirement is used is because it allows for REPEATABLE results from test laboratory to test laboratory.   How to you get repeatable results from cordwood????  The cordwood option was given to manufacturers by EPA in the Phase 1 Program - why didn't more manufacturers choose this test option and provide their results to EPA?  I believe only 1 manufacturer in Phase 1 chose it and then EPA abandoned it because the STATES won't allow it.  Did you know that indoor woodstoves and OWBs essentially use the same PM sampling method?  So how could those results be skewed?  I'm sure we are all educated enough to know the difference between default efficiencies (63%, 72% and 78%) and efficiencies based upon an OUTPUT based emission limit of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu output!

One last thing - EN 303-5 used in Europe show efficiency results over 90% and they have been endorsed by States and other governmental organizations.  Why does Heaterman then claim the numbers "defied the laws of physics"?   I am in no way saying that the European Method is bad - I'm making a point as it is different.  U.S. Methods require 4 test burn categories with highest weighting on the lower categories - the "dirtiest categories".  In EN 303-5 you hand pick your burn rate, your fuel and you test.  Is is proper then to compare the results?  Maybe, maybe not.  But why is there a problem when U.S. tests show close to or over 90% and nobody questions the EN units which show over 90%?  Europe doesn't accept the U.S. methods for approval so why should the U.S. accept the EN methods?  

Now to tie into the topic - the literature I saw at Expo on the E-Classic 1450 shows it meets both U.S. and EN requirements.  

Also, if you are in Massachusetts and you want to install an OWB (not an indoor - meaning inside your home) you have to install a Massachusetts Certified OWB.  Massachusetts requires this if you are installing an actual OWB meaning outside your house or in a shed or other structure not normally occupied by persons - http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/certohh.htm.  I'm not sure other units discussed here are on that list.


----------



## stee6043

Sam W. said:
			
		

> I liked to read some of the threads but this one makes me mad.  Heaterman - please STOP commenting on the EPA Test Method(s) because it appears you DO NOT have a clue!  You sound like an anti-wood burning activist who feeds that garbage through their cyber balkanist sites.  First - OWB manufacturer's started a process in ASTM to develop a test method for particulate matter emissions and efficiency in 2004 - the ASTM process then involves other manufacturers, test laboratories, EPA, State agencies, and any other interested parties to develop it - hence a consensus process.  The STATES essentially forced the EPA to take a draft method (draft 4) of the ASTM process and implement it to start the voluntary program in January 2007 - called EPA Method 28 OWHH.  Later the ASTM process finished by passing draft 12 in 2008 - ASTM E2618.  So in the meantime - an unfinished draft method gets shoved down the manufacturer's throats and in order to qualify an OWB - manufacturers used independent labs that tested to the Method *they were required to* use to qualify an OWB.  Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading?  By the way - the reason that the ASTM process took 4 years is because the States could not make up their mind regarding cribwood or cordwood and what species of wood would be used.  When the test methods came for indoor stoves, essentially from the Oregon wood stove laws, Oregon had chose douglas fir - softwoods in the N.W.  The N.E. States involved in the OWB process chose oak.
> 
> Yes EPA Method 28 OWHH was revised and approved in August or so of 2011 to make results more accurate (requiring more moisture content readings, measurements from the boiler side to the load side, etc.) but the general requirements stayed the same.  Measurements from the boilers side to the load side were already being done and only required recalculations were needed.
> 
> Did you know that EPA Test Method 28 (indoor woodstove method) uses dimensional lumber with spacers for testing?   Why is it required that 4by4 cribwood with spacers be used????  Because the States demanded it and because the States want "worst case" scenario PM emission results and they believe they get it this way.   However, the most important reason this fueling requirement is used is because it allows for REPEATABLE results from test laboratory to test laboratory.   How to you get repeatable results from cordwood????  The cordwood option was given to manufacturers by EPA in the Phase 1 Program - why didn't more manufacturers choose this test option and provide their results to EPA?  I believe only 1 manufacturer in Phase 1 chose it and then EPA abandoned it because the STATES won't allow it.  Did you know that indoor woodstoves and OWBs essentially use the same PM sampling method?  So how could those results be skewed?  I'm sure we are all educated enough to know the difference between default efficiencies (63%, 72% and 78%) and efficiencies based upon an OUTPUT based emission limit of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu output!
> 
> One last thing - EN 303-5 used in Europe show efficiency results over 90% and they have been endorsed by States and other governmental organizations.  Why does Heaterman then claim the numbers "defied the laws of physics"?   I am in no way saying that the European Method is bad - I'm making a point as it is different.  U.S. Methods require 4 test burn categories with highest weighting on the lower categories - the "dirtiest categories".  In EN 303-5 you hand pick your burn rate, your fuel and you test.  Is is proper then to compare the results?  Maybe, maybe not.  But why is there a problem when U.S. tests show close to or over 90% and nobody questions the EN units which show over 90%?  Europe doesn't accept the U.S. methods for approval so why should the U.S. accept the EN methods?
> 
> Now to tie into the topic - the literature I saw at Expo on the E-Classic 1450 shows it meets both U.S. and EN requirements.
> 
> Also, if you are in Massachusetts and you want to install an OWB (not an indoor - meaning inside your home) you have to install a Massachusetts Certified OWB.  Massachusetts requires this if you are installing an actual OWB meaning outside your house or in a shed or other structure not normally occupied by persons - http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/certohh.htm.  I'm not sure other units discussed here are on that list.



Excellent post.  Thank you for taking the time to share with us.


----------



## wishiwasfishingguy

stee6043 said:


> Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to share with us.


 
Very informative Sam.  You are obviously very well educated on this process and thank you for sharing.


----------



## NP ALASKA

Very interesting reading! I have done a little reading in regards to testing methods. Depending on the testing site things are done a bit differently. I think lots of the numbers presented are a guide and in no way are they a gaurantee. This is especially true if coming from a government agency. What I have done instead of getting caught up in these numbers is do some real research of actual appliances in use. I bought into a OWB some years back, unfortanately I had not found this site before making the investment.
I have since ordered a different appliance to help in doing away with my smoke wagon. My neiborghs are as excited as I am and luckily we are great firends and they have tolerated me for the past 5-6 years(smoke-smoke-smoke)
I did make a few long distance calls and even international calls to owners of the appliance I decided on. Also looking at many things overseas the technology they have is light years ahead of the US.
I think the best research a person can do is to visit with some using the appliance of choice. Luckily I was able to compare a few different gassers that are heating similar size homes and in similar climates to me. This helped alot, in my decision process. I realized the amount of wood I burn in one day will heat my home for a week or more in a gasser.
I wasnt keen on loosing the space inside for storage but have made due and both trucks wtill park inside.

Just my 2 cents----on research and comparison. The government is always straight forward in everything they report and share with us right????

Regards


----------



## NP ALASKA

To be fair, I feel compeled to mention that the above picture was taken directly after loading. The load was half pallets and hard wood on top of that.
Not the way I will do things in the future for sure.

Regards,


----------



## stee6043

Is that really a photo of your smoke pipe? Yikes....I've never seen an OWB in my area smoke like that. That looks like a volcano! ha. Glad to hear you're taking steps to improve. That much mess out the pipe can't be good for much of anything.


----------



## woodsmaster

Looks like a diesiel pulling tractor.


----------



## NP ALASKA

I cutt the half of the square footage to be heated by my up grade off the OWB yesterday. Gonna burn some oil until spring. But I will have the new system installed this summer and will recover. The folks next door said they could tell right-away that I had changed something. Not the amount of smoke in the air that used to be.


----------



## Gasifier

Did you pick a boiler yet Mass?


----------



## NP ALASKA

Yes that is an actual picture of my OWB in full force!! Time to put it to bed.

Mass have you decided on an appliance? I was very gun shy when committing. There are alot of good appliances out there.
Hope you make a good decision for yourself and oyur situation.

I thought my OWB was a good fit since I am on 10 acres, the probelm is I am surrounded by lots of 1-2 acre lots and my smoke definatley gets over the property line.

Best Regards,


----------



## heaterman

Samuel. I most definitely am NOT an anti wood burning activist. I feel that burning bio-mass, wood, pellets or whatever is an excellent choice for a person to make. Far better payback than a wind generator or solar electric, even solar hot water. That being said, I have to add that it must be done in a responsible manner first and foremost, secondly that a person should take great pains to select an appliance that is truly clean burning under real world conditions.

What unit of government mandated the current testing regimen is immaterial. It is still an inaccurate "yardstick". Regardless of whether it is mandated by local, state, or federal authorities the test method in it's current form is nearly worthless in establishing a true picture of how a given unit will perform in someone's backyard or house. Seriously. What good is data that while being repeatable, bears little accurate reflection of how the unit is actually going to work. People read the white or yellow tag on the unit and assume that their results will be similar. No? Of course they do.

You are correct when you assert that Method 28 specifies cribbed, clean wood, nailed together to present a uniform, repeatable test. This method of testing dates back to the early days of EPA getting "involved" in wood stove emissions. It was specifically developed for use in freestanding, indoor wood stoves like Lopi, Vermont Castings, etc, etc. That method is basically a holdover from the last century and was used not because it accurately portrayed emission and efficiency levels but simply because of inertia required to change it and a little back room politics.

Now...........Here is the major difference in those little indoor units and any wood fired hydronic heater (save a couple) and also the reason it is fatally flawed.
An indoor wood stove can be accurately tested with this method because of the way it operates. You can achieve fairly accurate results across the output range because the fire is never cycled completely off even at low outputs. You can throttle the fire down by closing the damper, arrive at a 25% or 50% output level without shutting down the fire and get a pretty good "read" on what is going on.
No OWB's that I am aware of are able to "throttle" the fire (burn rate). They merely cycle full off/full on at a different rate and effectively shut the fire down for longer durations to arrive at the lower output levels. Even the high end boilers that are able to modulate air flow reach a point where they have to shut down the burn and cycle to avoid over heating the system fluid, whatever that may be. Brookhaven National Labs recently conducted tests in conjunction with NYSERDA (sp) using a very high end wood boiler and found emissions to be extreme when outputs were reduced to the 25-35% range (this is not publicly available yet) The unit performed in a satisfactory manner when operated between 50-100% output but went downhill fast once it was operated below that. Now compound that with the fact that the operating conditions are absolutely and positively unrepeatable in the field and you end up with consumers who are being grossly mislead.

EPA 28 worked to a large extent in the indoor units it was originally designed for but fails to account for the 100% shutdown of the burn common to nearly all OWHH units. That fact, as much as the cribbed wood renders the results false when compared to what consumers will actually experience.


Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading? Let me start with a few assumptions that I think are safe to make........
I believe that many, if not all manufacturers have engineers who are probably a lot more educated than I am. The larger manufacturers especially.
I also believe that these companies and their engineers knew that the EPA test was a poor indicator of actual performance. (if the engineers did not grasp this I have to question if they are in the right occupation) I have also heard through the grapevine in this rather small industry that some manufacturers set up units for the test method in such a way that results would be favorable even though the units were operating far outside normal primary/secondary air ratios.

So how is it the manufacturers fault? Simply put, they went along with something they knew was bogus and ran with it instead of strongly making a case for something different. As such they are complicit in providing false and misleading information to the public.
Maybe it's not that black and white but it sure seems to me that a responsible manufacturer would have railed mightily against a testing method that did not/does not provide consumers with an accurate portrayal of how their unit will perform in a customers backyard.

Again. I would simply ask, what good are repeatable test results when they bear no semblance to normal operating conditions?
It would be the same as CAFE mileage standards being produced based on driving your car at 30 mph rather than normal speeds. Yes the results would be accurate but a person would never see anything close to it after he bought the car. Accurate but totally unrealistic.

As far as the European models and other US made units claiming 90% efficiency is concerned...It does indeed defy the laws of physics to claim that level of heat conversion when stack temps are 400-700*. Real efficiency at those stack temps would be more along the lines of 65-70 assuming the real heating value of the fuel.  A wood boiler that was actually cranking out 90% would require a condensate drain in the heat exchanger. Show me any wood boiler that has provision for a condensate drain and I'll eat some crow but from what I am aware of there are none.


----------



## NP ALASKA

Awesome, and AMEN!


----------



## samuel

PART 1

Heaterman

I did not say you were an anti-wood burning activist – I said you sound like one.  I don’t think this would be an issue if you sold your products based upon their own merits rather than trying to slam specific products and test methods.  I believe that your statement “_grapevine in this rather small industry that some manufacturers set up units for the test method in such a way that results would be favorable even though the units were operating far outside normal primary/secondary air ratios_” is flat-out BS.

Most of the testing requirements in the methods for OWBs were derived from what the EPA, states, test laboratories, manufacturers and other interested parties learned from 20 years of testing indoor woodstoves.  It appears you are claiming that you know more all of them – including their engineers.  You should take the time to learn about the consensus ASTM process and how the test method development process works and how many different interested parties participate in them.  If manufacturers aren’t at the table - EPA and the states can create their own regulations/legislation/test methods without input and participation from industry – at least until they propose such. 

Many manufacturers have been preparing since EPA’s first test of OWBs in 1995.  That’s difficult without knowing what test method or PM emission limit would be established.  The EPA Phase 1 and Phase 2 Programs allowed for test methods to be used that are similar to indoor woodstoves tests. Here is a comparison of methods:

EPA Test Method 28
v Indoor woodstoves/pellet stoves
v 4 test burn categories
v Uses 4 test burn categories to quantify results
v Use an average of results that weighs a medium-low heat category higher since these solid fuel burning devices are used in that range most of the time
v Wood test load using dimensional lumber with wood spacers
v Wood fuel moisture content ranges (19-25%).
v Established an 18 g/hr cap for any individual test run when burn rates were more than 1.5 kg/hr.
v Includes a requirement for measuring particulate matter (PM) collected by a dilution tunnel

EPA Test Method 28 OWHH/WHH (this is true for OWHH and WHH so major category comparisons DID NOT change)
v Outdoor hydronic heaters/indoor hydronic heater
v 4 test burn categories
v Uses 4 test burn categories to quantify results
v Use an average of results that weighs a medium-low heat category higher since these solid fuel burning devices are used in that range most of the time.
v Wood test load using dimensional lumber with wood spacers
v Wood fuel moisture content ranges (19-25%).
v Established an 18 g/hr cap for any individual test run - burn rates are typically more than 1.5 kg/hr.
v ASTM Method E2515 – _Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution tunnel_

When a lab performs everything required in ASTM E2515 – it performs everything in Method 28.  E2515 is a more up-to-date dilution tunnel method and will likely be instituted in the revised NSPS for all wood heaters.  EPA allows for ASTM E2618 to be used to qualify outdoor/indoor pellet hydronic heaters.  CSA B415.1-10 (the Canadian standard) also is fairly similar to the above Methods but has 3 test burn categories and defers to ASTM E2618 in several areas.  ASTM E2618 is being revised to “match” the revisions completed in Test Method 28 WHH - April 2012.  ASTM E2618 is approved by EPA for qualifying pellet wood boilers.  Are all these methods and results from them suspect?


----------



## samuel

PART 2
The OWB tests methods established as real world as you get, worst case scenario for PM emissions and efficiency that EPA and the states demanded.  How?  If your thoughts on cordwood were spot on, then more manufacturers would spend countless hours and thousands of dollars testing and proving with both and submitting the results to EPA and the states.  However, why would manufacturers do that when EPA and states WON’T accept? 

Here is a hypothetical OWB test for you to consider:
v An OWB is run at its Max Capacity for the Categegory IV test.  That OWB runs at Max Capacity in the test for 3-10 hours at 250,000 Btu/hr.  This establishes and determines where categories I, II and III are run at.
v Cat. I runs at less than 15% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test then runs for the next 25-50 hours in the laboratory. 
v Cat. II runs at 16-24% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test runs for the next 20-30 hours.
v Cat. III runs at 25-50% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test runs for the next 10-20 hours.

Regardless of the fuel requirement – if cordwood was used as the fuel – the testing scenario is the SAME. The particulate sampling methods – dilution tunnel methods are the same.  I have NEVER seen a claim the g/hr numbers are wrong. Here’s a quote from Vermont – with my underlining:
*Choosing an OWB: All the Phase II OWBs are far more efficient and less polluting than the uncertified OWB models. Although some of the efficiency based test results are questionable, the grams per hour emission rates listed above should be correct. For comparison, the US EPA standards for indoor wood stoves are 7.5 grams/hr for non-catalytic and 4.1 for catalytic stoves. The emissions from most recently designed indoor woodstoves are approximately half the level of the wood stove standards during tests. The grams/hr emissions from most of the Phase II OWBs approach or exceed the woodstove standards during laboratory testing, even though they produce at least twice to several times the heat output (in BTUs).*
Indoor woodstoves have been sold for over 20 years solely based on their g/hr numbers – so while a couple of issues get worked out on the efficiency for OWBs – it DOES NOT make information subject.   Imagine the kinks that might have to get worked out if and when efficiency limits are set in the NSPS for indoor woodstoves (70%).  Are groups going to be running around claiming the efficiency numbers are suspect and a new efficiency test needs to be worked out once results start coming in? 

Another issue where EPA and states wanted to show worst case scenarios for PM emissions demonstrates a consumer filling the OWB to the hilt – no matter the Btu/hr needs of the buildings being heated.  Wouldn’t a consumer know that the temperature outside is warmer – they need less heat – and they load the OWB according to their heat demand with less wood?  NOPE!  EPA and the states want worst case PM emissions and this is how EPA and the states believe that many consumers load OWBs – the consumer fills the OWB to the brink every time they load it regardless of heat demand.  That is why you see 340+ lbs of wood being loaded into the unit for each category burn rate test.  The test methods determine wood load on firebox size.

An typical OWB operates cyclically in the field by providing heat on demand.  The OWB operates between a high and low water temperature differential.  In the testing – the OWB operates as they do in the field - cyclically.  When the OWB brings the water up to the set high, the OWB shuts down and goes into “idol” or “slumber mode.”  Heat is continuously drawn off the heat exchanger at the Cat I, II, III or IV heat draws until it calls for heat, heat is supplied and then idol  – this happens repeatedly over the course of many hours test until the test is complete just as it would heating a home.  The test replicates a home drawing off the Category I-IV heat categories.  PM emission sampling is done throughout.  I’m at a loss why you don’t think this represents real world use?  

If an OWB cannot operate in Cat. I, II or III, then it cannot be tested in this method.  Should the remote thermal storage people stop working on a similar ASTM process because of “backroom politics” you wrote about?  If completed should their results be automatically suspect? 

Here is what EPA has on the Burn Wise website about the Test Method 28 OWHH and revisions that resulted in Test Method 28 WHH – some of which can already be re-calculated from the tests that have been done (1, 2 and 5):
_Because of uncertainties associated with the previous Test Method 28 OWHH, EPA, states, manufacturers, and laboratories spent several months revising this method and have made several improvements, including:_

_Efficiency calculation uses calibrated flow meter and temperature thermopiles on the load side;_
_Increased data readings from every 10 minutes to every minute;_
_Increased moisture readings from three to five;_
_Use CSA B415.1 stack loss method to check appropriateness of the overall efficiency calculation;_
_Changed the HHV default to 8600 BTUS/LB or using ASTM E711, and LHV default to 7938BTU/LB._
Now for NYSERDA - they support EU 90% efficiency numbers and endorse them.  NYSERDA statement,_ “Over the last 30 years average efficiencies of biomass boilers have increased from approximately 55% to more than 90% based on the NCV(net calorific value)…”_   The most recent NYSERDA tests (if you can even call them that) were suppose to show RESULTS of comparisons from the U.S. and EU tests with the same wood boiler.  The labs, regulators, manufacturers and other interested parties were there and NYSERDA had NO real results.  NYSERDA didn’t even have the essential equipment to conduct the tests (no scale and other vital equipment).  The result was they will spend the next 6 months possibly doing some type of testing but unsure if it will follow any of the prescribed methods or result in anything.  

I find your statements to be “fatally flawed” “an inaccurate yardstick”  and “manipulated”.


----------



## heaterman

Sam, you and anyone else are certainly are entitled to put your faith in all the test results, standards and methods you can find but I see the results of people believing them and taking them at face value everyday. The fact that a given unit meets the standard means very little as far as real life operation is concerned.

I would simply like to see a method that people can safely assume accurately reflects the results they will obtain. Nothing more, nothing less. The former standard as well as the current one do not.

As you said yourself, the test method is based on small airtight wood stoves rather than hydronic based heating systems. I am at a loss to explain why the powers that be cannot grasp that these are completely different animals in terms of operating characteristics. Lowering the output on a wood stove to 25% simply reduces the surface temperature of the unit and the surrounding air. Lower the output of a firebox surrounded by water to 25% and you have a fearful mess on your hands.
Ever look at the inside of a PhaseII gasser that spends most of it's time at outputs around 30-40% of full rating? It's ugly.

All I am asking and hoping for is that the agencies involved promulgate a standard that will actually tell Joe Consumer what he can expect in his own yard. That's all anyone should want.


----------



## samuel

Heaterman,

I really don't think you get it.

I clearly explained how OWBs are tested how they operate in the field.  I never said that the tests were based upon “small airtight wood stoves."  I clearly said that the laboratories, governmental organizations and manufacturers (and all of their engineers) took what they learned from over 20 years of testing indoor woodstoves to develop methods specifically applicable to outdoor wood boilers.

Yes – I have seen OWBs operating at 30-40% of the high rating.  Most OWBs do not operate at the maximum output because that is simply a guide to determine the other categories.  Let’s say the high output burn only last 3-6 hours – is a consumer of an OWB going to be happy with those burn times?  No.

Why do you think I explained in my first post on this issue that the highest weighting regarding PM and efficiency are on the lowest burn categories?  Because that is where they are used most of the time.  Most manufacturers of OWB don’t size their units based upon the max Btu/hr rating (some may).  The max btu/hr output has to be established to determine where to establish the other three categories.

You should be able grasp that most current wood heating test methods and ones currently in development are similar (especially when it comes to capturing PM emissions) across the board.


----------



## heaterman

I think we have derailed this thread enough Sam.

I remain convinced that the test results derived from the EPA28 testing OWHH's are fatally flawed. The results achieved by the manufacturers, some more than others, are skewed more toward marketing propaganda than giving consumers an accurate portrayal of how a given product may or may not perform. (Witness the exchange between Marty and Brian regarding CB's claim of 97% efficiency.)

I'm sorry but I have a very difficult time keeping a straight face when someone tells me that the EPA standard represents actual performance when I see numbers tossed around like that. Seriously. It rates right up there with the OWB salesman who told his audience at a trade show that there was no heat loss from the exposed "legs" of his wood burner because......drum roll here........"We use non-conductive steel".

There is so much misinformation, outright disinformation and half truth in the OWB industry it makes me sick. The fact that all the test protocol did was muddy the water even more and allow manufacturers to make claims of 97% or greater just plain sickens me. People, some of whom are my customers, buy this stuff and after I have installed it for them they call back and ask what is wrong with their boiler. They site references made by the dealer (who in many cases will not talk to them anymore) that the product would not creosote, cut their wood use by 70%, not smoke, etc etc. and now they are wondering what's going on. I feel like the angel of death when I have to tell them that their wood burner will not ever perform in the manner the brochure and the salesman lead them to believe.

People deserve the truth. They should not be taken advantage of by companies and persons who know how to make the numbers work for them.

I'm signing off this thread because it's serving no purpose other than arguing semantics. I would just advise a person considering any of the new OWB gassers to proceed cautiously and take what the salesman says with a grain of salt. For the most part all they know is what the factory tells them and we all know how accurate the claim of a 97% CB or a 99% whatever is. Who needs a test when the inaccuracy (to put it kindly) is right in front of ones face.

Adios Amigo


----------



## leaddog

samuel said:


> I liked to read some of the threads but this one makes me mad. Heaterman - please STOP commenting on the EPA Test Method(s) because it appears you DO NOT have a clue! You sound like an anti-wood burning activist who feeds that garbage through their cyber balkanist sites. First - OWB manufacturer's started a process in ASTM to develop a test method for particulate matter emissions and efficiency in 2004 - the ASTM process then involves other manufacturers, test laboratories, EPA, State agencies, and any other interested parties to develop it - hence a consensus process. The STATES essentially forced the EPA to take a draft method (draft 4) of the ASTM process and implement it to start the voluntary program in January 2007 - called EPA Method 28 OWHH. Later the ASTM process finished by passing draft 12 in 2008 - ASTM E2618. So in the meantime - an unfinished draft method gets shoved down the manufacturer's throats and in order to qualify an OWB - manufacturers used independent labs that tested to the Method *they were required to* use to qualify an OWB. Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading? By the way - the reason that the ASTM process took 4 years is because the States could not make up their mind regarding cribwood or cordwood and what species of wood would be used. When the test methods came for indoor stoves, essentially from the Oregon wood stove laws, Oregon had chose douglas fir - softwoods in the N.W. The N.E. States involved in the OWB process chose oak.
> 
> Yes EPA Method 28 OWHH was revised and approved in August or so of 2011 to make results more accurate (requiring more moisture content readings, measurements from the boiler side to the load side, etc.) but the general requirements stayed the same. Measurements from the boilers side to the load side were already being done and only required recalculations were needed.
> 
> Did you know that EPA Test Method 28 (indoor woodstove method) uses dimensional lumber with spacers for testing? Why is it required that 4by4 cribwood with spacers be used???? Because the States demanded it and because the States want "worst case" scenario PM emission results and they believe they get it this way. However, the most important reason this fueling requirement is used is because it allows for REPEATABLE results from test laboratory to test laboratory. How to you get repeatable results from cordwood???? The cordwood option was given to manufacturers by EPA in the Phase 1 Program - why didn't more manufacturers choose this test option and provide their results to EPA? I believe only 1 manufacturer in Phase 1 chose it and then EPA abandoned it because the STATES won't allow it. Did you know that indoor woodstoves and OWBs essentially use the same PM sampling method? So how could those results be skewed? I'm sure we are all educated enough to know the difference between default efficiencies (63%, 72% and 78%) and efficiencies based upon an OUTPUT based emission limit of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu output!
> 
> One last thing - EN 303-5 used in Europe show efficiency results over 90% and they have been endorsed by States and other governmental organizations. Why does Heaterman then claim the numbers "defied the laws of physics"? I am in no way saying that the European Method is bad - I'm making a point as it is different. U.S. Methods require 4 test burn categories with highest weighting on the lower categories - the "dirtiest categories". In EN 303-5 you hand pick your burn rate, your fuel and you test. Is is proper then to compare the results? Maybe, maybe not. But why is there a problem when U.S. tests show close to or over 90% and nobody questions the EN units which show over 90%? Europe doesn't accept the U.S. methods for approval so why should the U.S. accept the EN methods?
> 
> Now to tie into the topic - the literature I saw at Expo on the E-Classic 1450 shows it meets both U.S. and EN requirements.
> 
> Also, if you are in Massachusetts and you want to install an OWB (not an indoor - meaning inside your home) you have to install a Massachusetts Certified OWB. Massachusetts requires this if you are installing an actual OWB meaning outside your house or in a shed or other structure not normally occupied by persons - http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/certohh.htm. I'm not sure other units discussed here are on that list.


 I'm wondering what capacity you have with the OWB industry. It sounds like you have a lot of knowledge but it does seem to be directed to the OWB side. I know that the US wood burning is way behind the overseas guys and that we tend to burn different but we also waste alot of wood and make alot more smoke. So tell me why we have two states (Mass and MI) that demand asme stamps and some other states that don't want any wood boilers and want to ban any boilers outside or in a shed or out building not ocupied and these states don't reconize any overseas testing.
If I remember when the epa started all this garbage that Tarm and Garn apposed the testing because it wasn't representing accual use. There is way to much politics, back room dealing, trade protectionism, going on and not enough looking at clean burning tecknowledge. Who really gives a rap where the boiler is made and if it is asme or other stamped as long as it is a safe clean burning unit. If we got rid of all the fighting and lawsuits and different laws the market place would have lots of good units out there. Now some of the best units can't even be sold here cause the co. won't do bussiness here.
Does the gov have a place here? Yes but not to protect one segment of the industry. They should set down a safe min standard, and a min clean burn, that doesn't favor anyone and let the market place take over.
Did you know that in Mi a home owner can't replace his water heater legaly. Or that Geting a asme stamp for the exact same boiler can cost $2000 more. Come on that is plain stupid. Just plain stupid.
leaddog


----------



## martyinmi

Mass Heat,
   Any decision yet?


----------

