# Turbo Burn Inc.???



## gorbull (Jan 6, 2009)

Hi,
Anyone have any knowledge or experience with the Turbo Burn system out of Spokane? (http://www.turboburn.net/)
Looks like it's similar in principle to the Garn unit but can't really tell much as there is very little info. or discussion on the Web regarding this design.  Would appreciate any comments.

Cheers,
Gord


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 26, 2009)

The site I've posted below contains a lot more information then the manufacturers site along with some photos and the prices are even a bit cheaper. I have no clue it if it is a gasification unit but on the fuel comparison chart they are suggesting an efficiency of 80% making it comparable to some units. Also seems to be a true multifuel unit that is for sure.

http://www.beselfreliant.com/heating/index.cfm


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 26, 2009)

At the attached link they are claiming: _The Turbo Burn System is clean burning and a positive force in maintaining a healthy environment. There is only one way to burn clean and that is to burn hot. The Turbo Burn System burns the wood gases (40% of the fuel value). The tangible proof of complete combustion is *no visible smoke.*_

http://www.eskimo.com/~turbobrn/residential.shtml


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 26, 2009)

This brochure is the best. Nothing more then a small burn box sitting in a tank of water. Still, in the brochure they claim 90%+ burn efficiency along with negligible particulates and smoke.    

http://www.waterstovedirectory.com/TurboBurnBrochure3-06.pdf


----------



## jebatty (Jan 26, 2009)

The design, as shown in the brochure, doesn't really evidence an ability to achieve the efficiencies claimed, as the entire firebox plus fire tubes are surrounded by water. It seems to me that the key in the system, if it works as claimed, has to be in the amount of air "forced" into the firebox, with excess air accompanying the smoke/gas exhaust stream through the fire tubes to achieve a high level of secondary combustion in the fire tubes. I'm doubtful. Generally secondary combustion requires some burn area insulated from the water (ceramic, refractory, etc.) so that it can get hot enough to achieve that secondary burn, and even hotter to get the gasification burn as in the gasification boilers. The pictures for the Turbo Burn don't show any of this. I also would be concerned about creosote buildup in the fire tubes, as they are surrounded by water, and again, there is no evidence of a secondary burn taking place before the extra-hot exhaust stream enters the fire tubes to achieve a "clean" exhaust stream.

On the other hand, this design looks better, if it works without other problems, than the traditional OWB, which is little more than a firebox in a barrel.


----------



## Nofossil (Jan 26, 2009)

I have a strong suspicion that the 80% efficiency (as well as the 60% that it's compared to) came out of thin air in a marketing guy's office.

I have yet to see hard data that suggests any conventional boiler can deliver 60% of the chemical energy in the wood that it burns as heat to an external heat load under typical real-world conditions. (My definition of efficiency)

A good gasifier can deliver 90% under unrealistic operating conditions (infinite heat demand, very cold inlet and outlet temps, very high flow rate). Closed loop controls with oxygen sensors could theoretically add another 2% - 3%, and might help the boiler stay closer to peak efficiency under more realistic conditions.

I's ask them for the test results. Claims without hard data are just noise.


----------



## gorbull (Jan 26, 2009)

This companies material does seem to be a whole lot of marketing and hype with out any practical data or explanations of how the super hot burn is actually achieved.  They do have forced draft but as I understand it without refractory (which there is zilch) the metal jacket can not possibly reflect enough heat to reach the temperatures required to efficiently burn the wood gases.  Maybe I'm wrong.  

Can't understand why they don't just develop this model a little bit further and imitate the Garn.


----------



## rsnider (Jan 27, 2009)

i contacted turbo burn last year for info and they sent me paperwork on the tb1 750 gallon unit. it is like the garn units but no refractory tunnel at the end of fire chamber like the garn. but everything else about the same. they even called me a week later to see if i got all the info but i was not home and wife took message. it seems as if it is just a very small company that has been making them for awhile. i didn't go any further after seeing the price 9000 some dollars. at that price i would have bought a garn and been real happy. for what its worth my wife said the man who called was nice and full of any information i might need from him and his company it sounded like the owner to me. my advice call and talk to someone or get info.


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 27, 2009)

rsnider said:
			
		

> after seeing the price 9000 some dollars. at that price i would have bought a garn and been real happy.



The Garn is a fair bit more in price.

I tried calling the company but their phone line only rings up as a fax. I emailed them yesterday asking about emissions specs etc but so far no reply. I'm personally leaning towards a Garn though it takes sometimes weeks of pestering to get a living person to respond.


----------



## gorbull (Jan 27, 2009)

I sent this company an e-mail inquiry and low and behold I received a phone call from the owner a couple weeks later.  Very nice guy, he confirmed no refractory and gave me a spiel about the clean burn.  Unfortunately I'm not a boiler expert so I could not dig out any intelligent questions on the spot to get an explanation of how this was possible from him.  He offered to e-mail me contacts of installed units in my area (Southern B.C.) so I could check out a running unit.  That was 2 weeks ago, nothing yet.  Off hand he also admitted that if he was not in the boiler business himself he would own a Garn. 

I'd love to see a TurboBurn in action but I may have to travel to Spokane to witness it.  If I could have a boiler that performed remotely like a Garn for $9000 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.  Smaller and cheaper would be tasty cake!


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 27, 2009)

gorbull said:
			
		

> I'd love to see a TurboBurn in action but I may have to travel to Spokane to witness it.



I doubt it. While doing the research I came across a PDF file  from May 08 where some government body fined Turbo Burn for selling in Washington State which is presumably why they have that odd disclaimer on their site.

Nope, reckon you'll have to stay in BC.


----------



## rsnider (Jan 27, 2009)

i don't know what the smallest garn are going for now but i just meant if im going to spend almost 10000 for a boiler i would just get the garn. i do know since i last spoke to a garn dealer a year or two ago they went up in price. i have a biomass and it went from around 4500 to 5500 in a matter of 3 months over this past summer. everything is out of sight now with these boilers. I'm just glad i got mine now. by the way what are people spending on the smallest garn? not installation just the boiler.


----------



## grainfedprairieboy (Jan 27, 2009)

rsnider said:
			
		

> by the way what are people spending on the smallest garn? not installation just the boiler.



I believe the smallest is running around the $15,000 mark.


----------

