onesojourner said:Does any one know for sure if you can include a liner in this tax rebate?
Slow1 said:I care about how they come up with the numbers for several reasons. First - I want to know if they are meaningful beyond the "does this stove qualify for the rebate" - i.e. does the number really reflect anything to do with how one stove will consume fuel compared to another in real-world applications. If each mfgr is using a different methodology to qualify then the numbers are certainly not comparable. Then if they are using the same methodology and that methodology is so idealistic that it doesn't reflect anything near real-world scenarios then again it won't matter beyond the rebate qualification.
karl said:I would be curious to know how efficient a stove is at putting heat into the room. I know I'm down a bit on efficiency with my insert, but it would be nice to see a number.
Good point, but if the heat isn't going up the stack, it's being transfered to the surrounding areas. As far as real world numbers go, I wouldn't plan on seeing 75%!karl said:I would be curious to know how efficient a stove is at putting heat into the room. I know I'm down a bit on efficiency with my insert, but it would be nice to see a number.
What the heck does that mean, “as measured using a lower heating value”? Anybody know?
Wood Heat Stoves said:^^^ maybe in some cases, but if so, why are all the makers going/have gone to secondary combustion sysytems??
opinions abound, lol
Todd said:Wood Heat Stoves said:^^^ maybe in some cases, but if so, why are all the makers going/have gone to secondary combustion sysytems??
opinions abound, lol
All makers aren't going to secondary burn systems. Energy King switched back to catalytic and told me because it was more efficient. But if I were to guess why some have switched to burn tubes, I'd have to say there are too many people out there that burn improperly or burn garbage, scrap lumber or wet wood which is death for a catalyst. So manufactures just didn't want to deal with it anymore.
If your a serious 24/7 wood burner who takes care of his/her system and wood supply a cat stove experience can be excellent. Starting out cats are more efficient, but over time they probably even out with non cats as they degrade at the end of their lifespan.
Yes, cats are generally more efficient. The down side is they need replacing every 6 to 10 years (at $100 to $300) and as Todd stated, they require a died of clean wood (no trash).carinya said:If higher stack temp means more heat leaving the building....would this suggest that a cat stove is more efficient at throwing heat because it seems to operate at a lower stack temp ?
Alternatively, the same amount of heat may be leaving the building, just over a longer period
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.