# Condensing Stove - No Chimney



## jebatty (Jun 11, 2013)

Good things are on the horizon. This is not yet available, maybe never will be, but the innovation is quite amazing. This is a stove, not a boiler, but I see no reason why this concept would not work for a boiler.

http://www.brightstove.com/?utm_source=June+Newsletter&utm_campaign=June+Newsletter&utm_medium=email


----------



## stee6043 (Jun 11, 2013)

I wonder if municipal water treatment facilities would have an issue with the discharge from a unit like this?  Surely one would not make a difference but if every other house had one it might be a different story.

Neat technology though.  I'd like to see one run.  I'd also be interested to know how much water and electric such a unit uses...


----------



## ridemgis (Jun 11, 2013)

Way cool!  Wonder what happens when the power goes off during a burn. Sure, the fire will choke out pretty quickly, but where does the smoke and heat go in the interim?


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 11, 2013)

Very interesting Jim!  I'm curious about the water and pumping wattage needed, but the concept is GREAT and simple.  I wonder how startup is as far as the condensate is.  The idea that he was useing a plastic vent hose with a wood fire just makes me grin.  In theory this type of scrubbing means wouldn't even soot up the wite vinyl siding like all the pellet stoves I see do.

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jun 12, 2013)

Looks to me like one of those things that's a good idea..........................on paper. Too many things have to work right for it to function as expected.
Solid fuel of any kind and condensing level efficiency go together like fried onions and birthday cake. Each of them are good by themselves but never together.


----------



## TCaldwell (Jun 12, 2013)

being a wood stove,suspect  or intermittent secondary burn assumed, what happens to the carbon monoxide created by a suspect secondary burn, does that somehow cling to the water also. This basically washes the fluegas and in doing so manipulates the fluegas temp to create a high effiency on paper. as you can see by the water residue the fluegas analyser is not actually reading the combustion process, but the result after being washed. please correct me if i am wrong


----------



## jebatty (Jun 13, 2013)

The efficiency claim may be a question of definition of efficiency. As presented by the Hughes stove article, it appears to be defined as capturing the heat from combustion and not by combustion efficiency plus capturing the combustion heat. But there is nothing I see in the concept of water jet induced draft and scrubbing which would prevent this idea from being used in a high efficiency gasification boiler/stove, which I believe attain combustion efficiency of 98% or better as well as overall efficiency at 80% and up based on flue gas temperatures approaching the condensing level. But if the flue gas also was condensed and scrubbed with the heat captured by a heat exchanger, as employed in the Hughes stove, then efficiency could approach the high 90% range.

What was interesting was the concept of water jet scrubbing and heat capture. Take that wherever it leads. With an efficient gasification process, CO and H would be near 100% combusted, the solid emissions captured would essentially be the uncombustible fly ash, and what would be left to go up the stack would be CO2, Nitrogen variants and H2O, all at very low temperature.


----------



## TCaldwell (Jun 13, 2013)

Understanding the health emision reduction, a great benefit, but i would be concerned if central boiler claimed with this technology 100% effiency, kind of loik painting the car before fixing the dent.On a already efficiently designed boiler this could be the only improvement left, on a cb they are missing a few steps. Cb is used as a example of a design that could stand combustion improvement.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 13, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Solid fuel of any kind and condensing level efficiency go together like fried onions and birthday cake. Each of them are good by themselves but never together.


 
I'd take fried onions over birthday cake any day!

The particulate and CO with questionable secondary burn at times is simply washed down the drain....  So where does that end up?  Instead of being released into the atmosphere and then percipitated back to earth by means of rainfal, we just pipe it to the earth......  Still looks neat though!

TS


----------



## TCaldwell (Jun 16, 2013)

for clean air it is a good, espically in industrial apps that would otherwise be unfeasable, small manufacturers should focus on known effiency practices before turning to this, just my 2 cents


----------

