Marty S said:
BK:
More gum flapping to justify your outdated polluting wood burning device:
* I did not say YOUR stove emits 60 Gm/Hr. Read what was said 2/20/11 at 321 PM on this thread and check the reference for emissions of 70's stoves, like yours.
* Homemade charts and videos can be made to show anything to defend almost any position, wrong or other. These you present mean nada.
* Emitting 35 Gm/Hr (your data, your stove, if accurate ?), this is 5 X more than most modern phase II stoves burn today. Simply, it stinks. And, you're content?
Nowhere in almost 50 years of wood burning have I encountered the outrageous claim that burning wood at 60% MC (green wood has about 50% MC) is a good idea for residential wood stoves as you have indicated.
Google "wood burning efficiency" to see data that supports burning seasoned wood (20% MC) compared to green wood (50% MC). This has nothing to do with the stove, just the wood.
* Doubles BTUs/ton
* Increases efficiency 10% (less water to boil off before the wood can begin pyrolysis)
* Doubles net heat value of the fuel
Please don't take any of this personally. I realize my comments won't change your views; you are right, the industry is wrong.
Maybe others will be able to see the difference between the smoke and the fire.
Aye,
Marty
Well, looks like that storm has intensified dramatically right over my destination, so we are putting off our departure until sometime tomorrow. So....
Marty, Marty, Marty....
Do your read all the words? Really?
Nowhere did I ever state that my stove is the clean burning equivalent of a modern EPA stove.
Nowhere ever have I condoned the burning of green wood as a common heating practice. I posted that video, not to show that it should be done, but that it
could be done. Quite cleanly, in fact. Lots of heat, in fact. Enough to make my stove hit almost 1000º before I got scared and closed it down. The point? It ain't the stove so much, or the wood so much, it's the operator that is far and away the biggest contributor to smoke pollution. A savvy operator can burn just about anything cleanly, and a nimrod can gunk up a cat stove that puts out <1g/hr during the EPA test. I
do not cause smoke pollution with my stove at any time. In order to cause smoke pollution, you need to have smoke, right? I'll stack my stack up against anybody here. I've done much worse with my outdoor grill, my fire pit, my indoor fireplace, my chiminea, and with thousands of campfires I've built in the wilderness. Hell, I make more smoke with one rack of ribs than I make all season with my stove. Please don't tell me (and many others here) that I have to give that up as well.
No amount of guilt tripping is ever gonna make me drop $3K for a new stove when I have a perfectly good heater in place right now. I burn it as cleanly as I can and I'm leaving it at that. I go way overboard compared to most folks in reducing my burning of carbon-sequenstered fossil fuels in internal combustion engines, but I don't get on here and rag on folks for running all over the countryside in their big trucks, billowing smoke, oil and pollution out of their chainsaws just to save a few bucks. I buy almost all of my wood from guys who can do it a lot more efficiently that I can (or they'd be out of business tomorrow). Live and let live. Or air out your own dirty laundry here before you start casting stones at others. In case you didn't notice, there is a whole new forum here dedicated to those folks who chose to stick with the old technology. Hopefully, all will benefit from improved burning practices with these devices as tips begin to emerge over time. Let's stop insulting folks who differ from you, and tend to how you feel you should live your
own life... and stop pontificating about how wonderfully you live yours.
BTW that wasn't some homemade chart I came up with, that was taken from a study of several wood burning devices that was done in the 80s by one of the preeminent wood burning technologists in the world, Dr. Jay Shelton. He's forgotten more about solid fuels than all of us here have learned together.
Also, you are quite adept at confusing the facts to make your own case. You conveniently use the
weight of the wood to show how inefficient burning green wood is (which, in fact, is not 50% MC, but varies widely from as little as 30% to over 200% depending on species and a host of other variables), when you know full well that the water part of the weight doesn't burn. In either case, however, the
wood always has the same amount of wood fiber in any given split. The evaporation energy lost from that total potential energy has been proven to be less than 10% in most wood burning devices, with
less PM produced with greener wood... at least in the old stoves.