Alternate Heating false advertisement
- Thread starter tbsdolmar
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Singed Eyebrows said:
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.
Absolutly Heaterman! Thats why it was good to see Froling take the plunge. Hopefully some of the idiocy will be corrected, Randyheaterman 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 OMW
There 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.
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 OMW
There 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.
heaterman said:
Exactly Heaterman, but as long as they are taking orders and gloating about it I guess it must be ok in some weird way. Who said being honest has anything to do with selling and customer relations. And who ever Brian is that is enjoying the "Banter" seems to have no moral compass either. Hopefully the customer base they have will get educated real quick and speak to the PA Attorney General for misleading advertising.
It really is unfortunate because I believe they have a good product, it was on my short list when I made my purchase. Wow, am I glad I didn't go with them.
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 OMW
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.
well said heaterman. For a bit more detailed explanation, I encourage anyone interested to read our write up of the difference between European and US efficiency ratings. Warning: heavy on the geek. See it at our blog: (broken link removed)
Chris
If I were an Attorney's General I sure wouldn't want to prosecute someone for misleading advertising when they had a written statement from the EPA backing up their "misleading" claim. What I would have liked to have seen was a 97% "per EPA" qualifier. If WG had got a lousy 60% rating & hid this the same people that are down on them would have called for disclosure. Now they get a great rating & WG is supposed to keep it quiet? I personally don't think there is anything wrong or illegal with WG advertising 97% efficency, I sell used cars though(just kidding on the cars). I don't hear anybody clamoring for GM Ford etc's scalp because of bogus EPA numbers. Randy
My Nissan cars have always gotten better MPG than EPA thinks.
My Nissan Truck, on the other hand . . . . :grrr:
I doubt you'll ever see Chritie Whitman in an Avitar
My Nissan Truck, on the other hand . . . . :grrr:
I doubt you'll ever see Chritie Whitman in an Avitar
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.
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 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:
boilermanjr said:
You want to take the discussion in a "different direction" because of where you stand in the industry. Most of us are not dealers, distributors, manufacturers or installers. We are simply consumers and when we hear someone making false claims we want to call them out which is what this "uncivilized string of posts" accomplished. Perhaps if there were more threads of this kind, there wouldn't be some poor guy standing in front of a junk boiler wondering what to do next, after sinking thousands of dollars in a unit that was sold as the best thing ever.
If the EPA numbers are what they are stating, flawed or not, there is nothing illegal here.
Most Hearth readers take those numbers with some healthy skepticism and one would hope the general public might too.
The marketplace is a pretty decent filter. If a company has a reasonable product, it will persist in the marketplace.
If not, they will disappear. Think about the ones that have gone in the last couple years.
Most Hearth readers take those numbers with some healthy skepticism and one would hope the general public might too.
The marketplace is a pretty decent filter. If a company has a reasonable product, it will persist in the marketplace.
If not, they will disappear. Think about the ones that have gone in the last couple years.
Wow... I never considered I'd have condensation problems if my boiler was super-efficient... good thing its not, lol...
I can see how a Garn or anything with a lot of storage can have pretty stable numbers, but when you take a fuel like wood that varies from tree to tree, let alone species to species, how are you really going to stand by the numbers? How is it possible under any circumstances to get 97% efficiency out of a non-condensing appliance?
The tests are most likely written by the established (and domestic) industry. I know in fire alarm systems its a piece of cake to write a job spec so the contractor can only use one manufacturer. It looks up-in-up but its crooked as can be.
The tests are most likely written by the established (and domestic) industry. I know in fire alarm systems its a piece of cake to write a job spec so the contractor can only use one manufacturer. It looks up-in-up but its crooked as can be.
If there is anything that this country is good at besides producing obscure regulations and rating systems that favor established industry or labor union interests it must be the over whelming number of gullible consumers that can't be bothered to try to understand what a sales pitch is saying.
There are lots of different ways to define terms and ways of comparing one product to another. Each has a different purpose and yeah, it seems like those purposes are sometimes only to deceive the public. But unless you actually trouble yourself to find out what the definitions of these terms are and how they are derived, they don't really mean much.
One of the (several) standards of measuring moisture content in wood can result in a green log moisture content over 100%. This blows some peoples' minds. How can wood be more than 100% water But there are advantages in engineering and academic research to using that rating system. If you understand how the rating is defined, it can make sense. May not be the best numbers for your particular situation though. That doesn't mean it is absurd or sinister. It doesn't prove that it isn't either, I suppose.
The fact is, most people just believe whoever says what they want to believe. Sound too good to be true? That's OK. Maybe it's true. It's 20% off! This weekend only! They can load it in my pickup right now! It will only take a couple hours to install and I'll be saving 50% on my heating bill for the rest of my life!
It's hard to beat logic like that. Not much healthy skepticism out there. Look at your average campaign claims. Fact checking seems to be rare stuff.
Regular readers here are not like most folks out there. No definition of terms will make things clear to everyone and any definition of terms can be turned into a sales pitch.
There are lots of different ways to define terms and ways of comparing one product to another. Each has a different purpose and yeah, it seems like those purposes are sometimes only to deceive the public. But unless you actually trouble yourself to find out what the definitions of these terms are and how they are derived, they don't really mean much.
One of the (several) standards of measuring moisture content in wood can result in a green log moisture content over 100%. This blows some peoples' minds. How can wood be more than 100% water
But there are advantages in engineering and academic research to using that rating system. If you understand how the rating is defined, it can make sense. May not be the best numbers for your particular situation though. That doesn't mean it is absurd or sinister. It doesn't prove that it isn't either, I suppose.The fact is, most people just believe whoever says what they want to believe. Sound too good to be true? That's OK. Maybe it's true. It's 20% off! This weekend only! They can load it in my pickup right now! It will only take a couple hours to install and I'll be saving 50% on my heating bill for the rest of my life!
It's hard to beat logic like that. Not much healthy skepticism out there. Look at your average campaign claims. Fact checking seems to be rare stuff.
Regular readers here are not like most folks out there. No definition of terms will make things clear to everyone and any definition of terms can be turned into a sales pitch.
Dear Consumers,
The EPA test method borrowed from an ASTM method, which by definition is a consensus method. Those who created the ASTM method were from industry, EPA, and state air regulatory agencies. The test is absolutely not a test that industry would have designed if it was the only party creating the test. The tests use four burn rates with the lowest burn rates being most heavily weighted. At these burn rates the boilers should not be dong their best work. It was actually the intent of EPA to create a test that mimics worst case scenario for wood burning, which is involves very low burn rates. Somehow some manufacturers are jumping this low burn rate hurdle with ease.
The primary difference between the EPA test method and the ASTM test method is that the EPA test method requires the use of 4" x4" red or white oak cribs as fuel whereas the ASTM method requires the use of cord wood. EPA believes that crib wood makes the test more repeatable. Unfortunately, even with crib wood test fuel it has been proven that neither the ASTM test or the EPA test is accurately repeatable.
How the "as-tested" efficiency numbers can be so high is a mystery to me as our boilers have not gone through this process in the U.S. For you consumers out there, you will have to be aware that the EPA numbers do not define the actual capabilities of the boilers in the real world even thought that was the intent of EPA. It is a good cord wood burning product that can achieve 80% over-all efficiency at the high heating value of wood and continue to operate as a reliable machine. A good pellet boiler will achieve about 85% over-all efficiency.
By next July EPA intends to roll out new testing methods for all wood burning equipment including boilers. It will be interesting to see how the current results are handled. In the mean time, I will make sure that the proper contacts at EPA see this string of emails so that they can see first hand that the test is not working out for consumers.
The EPA test method borrowed from an ASTM method, which by definition is a consensus method. Those who created the ASTM method were from industry, EPA, and state air regulatory agencies. The test is absolutely not a test that industry would have designed if it was the only party creating the test. The tests use four burn rates with the lowest burn rates being most heavily weighted. At these burn rates the boilers should not be dong their best work. It was actually the intent of EPA to create a test that mimics worst case scenario for wood burning, which is involves very low burn rates. Somehow some manufacturers are jumping this low burn rate hurdle with ease.
The primary difference between the EPA test method and the ASTM test method is that the EPA test method requires the use of 4" x4" red or white oak cribs as fuel whereas the ASTM method requires the use of cord wood. EPA believes that crib wood makes the test more repeatable. Unfortunately, even with crib wood test fuel it has been proven that neither the ASTM test or the EPA test is accurately repeatable.
How the "as-tested" efficiency numbers can be so high is a mystery to me as our boilers have not gone through this process in the U.S. For you consumers out there, you will have to be aware that the EPA numbers do not define the actual capabilities of the boilers in the real world even thought that was the intent of EPA. It is a good cord wood burning product that can achieve 80% over-all efficiency at the high heating value of wood and continue to operate as a reliable machine. A good pellet boiler will achieve about 85% over-all efficiency.
By next July EPA intends to roll out new testing methods for all wood burning equipment including boilers. It will be interesting to see how the current results are handled. In the mean time, I will make sure that the proper contacts at EPA see this string of emails so that they can see first hand that the test is not working out for consumers.
EPA believes that crib wood makes the test more repeatable.
I have to agree that dealing with a known fuel load does indeed make the test more repeatable. The flip side of the coin is that it also makes the test nearly worthless in determining actual field performance. I think that a better indication would be derived from the average of a good number (50-100) of burns that are cycled as the unit is intended to be used in the field. The wood could be sorted by moisture content to eliminate that factor and the test noted as being valid only for that range.
One of the keys is that the burn time, on/off cycle rate, or the lack thereof would have to be accounted for also. Thinking here of units being run with storage or having integral storage and the test annotated to acknowledge this difference. I know that the cycle and load percentage built into the current EPA test makes it completely ludicrous when it comes to something like a Garn or other gasser using high volume storage.
be aware that the EPA numbers do not define the actual capabilities of the boilers in the real world even thought that was the intent of EPA
Truer words have never been spoken regarding the EPA test protocol. What you see is NOT what you get!!
One test method will never apply equally to all the different methods of operation and units out there.
I have to agree that dealing with a known fuel load does indeed make the test more repeatable. The flip side of the coin is that it also makes the test nearly worthless in determining actual field performance. I think that a better indication would be derived from the average of a good number (50-100) of burns that are cycled as the unit is intended to be used in the field. The wood could be sorted by moisture content to eliminate that factor and the test noted as being valid only for that range.
One of the keys is that the burn time, on/off cycle rate, or the lack thereof would have to be accounted for also. Thinking here of units being run with storage or having integral storage and the test annotated to acknowledge this difference. I know that the cycle and load percentage built into the current EPA test makes it completely ludicrous when it comes to something like a Garn or other gasser using high volume storage.
be aware that the EPA numbers do not define the actual capabilities of the boilers in the real world even thought that was the intent of EPA
Truer words have never been spoken regarding the EPA test protocol. What you see is NOT what you get!!
One test method will never apply equally to all the different methods of operation and units out there.
- Status
Similar threads
