Singed Eyebrows said:Personally I wouldn't have taken a roadside sign too seriously if a person was well informed about wood burning. If it isn't efficiency numbers that are being juggled it is burn times. Seems you need a 8 to 10 hour burn or your boiler isn't worth buying. I don't think anyone is saying WG did anything illegal are they? Is it WG's job to correct the EPA? My .02 cents worth is that hoky EPA testing is at fault here not WG for using their numbers, Randy
heaterman said:I could go on but the last time I spoke with someone at Viessmann regarding bringing their wood burners here, they nearly laughed in my face because of the these things.
Absolutly Heaterman! Thats why it was good to see Froling take the plunge. Hopefully some of the idiocy will be corrected, Randyheaterman said:Singed Eyebrows said:Personally I wouldn't have taken a roadside sign too seriously if a person was well informed about wood burning. If it isn't efficiency numbers that are being juggled it is burn times. Seems you need a 8 to 10 hour burn or your boiler isn't worth buying. I don't think anyone is saying WG did anything illegal are they? Is it WG's job to correct the EPA? My .02 cents worth is that hoky EPA testing is at fault here not WG for using their numbers, Randy
Exactly. The problem is that uninformed people/prospective customers read that drivel and assume it is indeed fact and that is the efficiency they will achieve.
I see the same thing on the gas fired boiler side of things. The AFUE rating is taken as "real world" operation when in fact little else could be further from the truth. A boiler is not like a condensing furnace where you have a whole house full of 65-70* air with which to wring that last drop of heat from your exhaust stream. Routine efficiencies with high efficiency 90%+ boilers are actually 84-87% under what are generally regarded as normal conditions. IE: return water above 140* or there abouts. These conditions are generally not achieved with high temp systems such as baseboard unless using outdoor reset in the "shoulder" seasons. If you have a radiant floor slab driving your return temps down to the 90-100* level then yes, you can get as much as 95%+ with a good gas boiler.
Now in the case of any wood boiler that I have seen, it is imperative to keep return water at 140-150* or you will have a mess on your hands. Condensate from a wood burning piece of heating equipment is something you want to avoid to say the least.
So that being said, how is flue gas condensation handled in a Wood Gun? What is the minimum required water temperature that is safe for operation?
PS: This very thing is one of the main reasons a lot of major European wood boiler manufacturers avoid the US market. Hyperbole everywhere, uninformed buyers, standards that make no sense at all, regulations that are even more idiotic...........I could go on but the last time I spoke with someone at Viessmann regarding bringing their wood burners here, they nearly laughed in my face because of the these things.
heaterman said:A couple more things.............
But PLEASE..........don't claim that a Wood Gun or any other wood burner for that matter is 90%+ efficient. Those statements are a half truth and I was always taught that was the same as a lie.
heaterman said:A couple more things.............
Perusing the EPA list of righteous wood burners, I see there are many that are rated in the 90%+ range. Heatmor's Response SSRII is even rated at 99.9% efficiency OMWThere must be no heat coming out of the chimney at all. I wonder where the condensate drain is on that unit? ...............pardon the sarcasm. I couldn't help myself.
You'll notice that the EPA list shows two efficiencies. One each for high heating value and low heating value. All of the 90%+ rating are obtained using the high heating value, which is unobtainable in real world conditions. High heating value assumes that all combustion byproducts are cooled to the same temperature they were at the beginning of the burn process. And also that all water vapor produced by the combustion is condensed and the heat extracted down to it's beginning temperature also. That would mean if your combustion air was 50* going in, it would have to be 50* coming out of the stack. One can only speculate the effect that -10* exhaust temps would be on one of these outdoor units......... Anyone can easily understand that with water temps of 160-180*, these results can never be achieved. The low heating value rating shown on the EPA list may be a little more accurate because it does not factor in the condensation of flue gas. Just Google high heating value, low heating value if you don't believe me. This is not rocket science, just basic combustion theory. The other thing I would like people to understand is that there are two factors in overall efficiency. Number one being the combustion efficiency rating reflected in the EPA tests. Number two is that heat transfer efficiency has a large influence on the overall performance of a product. You can make a burner 100% efficient on the combustion side but if the heat transfer area is not up to the task, the unit will be unable to move all the heat into the transfer medium. In this case we are talking water or whatever fluid is in the system. I seldom see any specs on heat transfer efficiency because no one talks about that. It is however just as important as combustion efficiency. Transfer efficiency is what drops your flue gas temp down into the 250* range that you want to see. Exhaust temps in that range will typically correlate to an overall efficiency of 75-85% depending on moisture content of the fuel.
Seeing that the Wood gun is a decent design I think it would be fair to assume a diligent wood burner will realistically get efficiencies in that range.
But PLEASE..........don't claim that a Wood Gun or any other wood burner for that matter is 90%+ efficient. Those statements are a half truth and I was always taught that was the same as a lie.
We all have different opinions here, no one right or wrong. Hearth would be a dull place indeed if there were only one opinion, unless of course that were mine. You make some good points, in my opinion, Randyboilermanjr said:This is the most uncivilized string of posts that I have ever read on this forum. I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction. First, this industry will be legitimized when we all begin to speak honestly to the consumer and properly support the products we sell. This is not just a wood boiler emissions and efficiency problem. It starts with firewood and pellet sales and goes through appliance sales all the way to installers and service people. We could all benefit from a little less chest pounding and short term gain in exchange for working together to re-build all of our reputations, which have been severely damaged by lies, false claims, ignorance, and technology that unnecessarily poses health risks. We lack standards, professional training, and licensing. Biomass thermal applications are in decline and have been for decades. Regulators, politicians and the general public aren't impressed by the lot of us who show up in the news negatively most of the time. We can do great things for local economies and the environment if we can somehow refresh our images.
As for testing, the EPA is continuing to work on its boiler test standards. The EPA isn't a bunch of fools. They know that their current method isn't working out just as all of you do. It has has included industry, state regulators, consultants, and others in its discussions. Only about 5% of industry gets involved in these types of discussions and leaves the heavy lifting to a small few participants. These meetings serve as important educational and networking opportunities. Yet, it is easier to stand on the sidelines making assumptions and lobbing bombs. Getting involved productively is the high road more need to take.
There are several new trade groups that work for the betterment of our industry. These associations act as resources to groups like the EPA. We hope that these associations can be the tide that will lift all boats. One trade group is the Hearth Patio and Barbeque Association/Pellet Fuels Association. The Biomass Thermal Energy Council is another. Recently a group of us formed the Northeast Biomass Thermal Working Group. I'dl like to see more of the hearth.com enthusiasts who are spending countless hours on this forum begin joining us for productive work that benefits all who would want biomass thermal to succeed. You'll bring a much broader point of view back to this forum and bring your experience and energy to groups that could use some new blood.
boilermanjr said:This is the most uncivilized string of posts that I have ever read on this forum. I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction. First, this industry will be legitimized when we all begin to speak honestly to the consumer and properly support the products we sell. This is not just a wood boiler emissions and efficiency problem. It starts with firewood and pellet sales and goes through appliance sales all the way to installers and service people. We could all benefit from a little less chest pounding and short term gain in exchange for working together to re-build all of our reputations, which have been severely damaged by lies, false claims, ignorance, and technology that unnecessarily poses health risks. We lack standards, professional training, and licensing. Biomass thermal applications are in decline and have been for decades. Regulators, politicians and the general public aren't impressed by the lot of us who show up in the news negatively most of the time. We can do great things for local economies and the environment if we can somehow refresh our images.
As for testing, the EPA is continuing to work on its boiler test standards. The EPA isn't a bunch of fools. They know that their current method isn't working out just as all of you do. It has has included industry, state regulators, consultants, and others in its discussions. Only about 5% of industry gets involved in these types of discussions and leaves the heavy lifting to a small few participants. These meetings serve as important educational and networking opportunities. Yet, it is easier to stand on the sidelines making assumptions and lobbing bombs. Getting involved productively is the high road more need to take.
There are several new trade groups that work for the betterment of our industry. These associations act as resources to groups like the EPA. We hope that these associations can be the tide that will lift all boats. One trade group is the Hearth Patio and Barbeque Association/Pellet Fuels Association. The Biomass Thermal Energy Council is another. Recently a group of us formed the Northeast Biomass Thermal Working Group. I'dl like to see more of the hearth.com enthusiasts who are spending countless hours on this forum begin joining us for productive work that benefits all who would want biomass thermal to succeed. You'll bring a much broader point of view back to this forum and bring your experience and energy to groups that could use some new blood.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.