Are EPA numbers complete BS?

[DougA]

I posted a response to this on the cat/non-cat thread and I think it needs to have it's own thread. I had never seen (or cared to look) at the EPA stats on stoves but this link was posted:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf

Here's a quick summary about 6 stoves I had researched to buy:

Ideal Steel 12-57,000 BTU
BK King 9-39,800 BTU
Isle Royale 10-46,800 BTU
Equinox 12-37,900 BTU
PE Summit 10-37,500 BTU
Progress Hybrid 12-73,000 BTU

EPA is saying that the Progress Hybrid has twice the heat output of the Hearthstone Equinox or the BK King ??????? How many King owners think the IS beats them on max. heat output at all, let alone twice as much? Either I am confused, there are a lot of typos or the EPA was smoking a lot more than wood when they did these tests. If these numbers are completely NUTS, then that makes the whole report complete BS.

IS is a 3.2 cu ft firebox and a BK King is 4.32. Yet, they are testing the IS at 50% more BTU output????? Are these numbers coming out of Russia??? I am not interested in getting into the politics of the EPA. I always thought the EPA was supposed to be honest. What am I missing - besides the obvious.

If it's all in their methodology, then IMHO, their methodology is wacko and that makes the entire results null & void.

 

[DougA]

I forgot something important. It was the EPA that established the gas mileage stats on new cars and it was proven to be wrong. Maybe there's a trend.

BTW, no politics from me on this. I'm not a registered voter. However, as of this morning, I'm probably on the no-fly list.

 

[Tenn Dave]

I posted a response to this on the cat/non-cat thread and I think it needs to have it's own thread. I had never seen (or cared to look) at the EPA stats on stoves but this link was posted:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf

Here's a quick summary about 6 stoves I had researched to buy:

Ideal Steel 12-57,000 BTU
BK King 9-39,800 BTU
Isle Royale 10-46,800 BTU
Equinox 12-37,900 BTU
PE Summit 10-37,500 BTU
Progress Hybrid 12-73,000 BTU

EPA is saying that the Progress Hybrid has twice the heat output of the Hearthstone Equinox or the BK King ??????? How many King owners think the IS beats them on max. heat output at all, let alone twice as much? Either I am confused, there are a lot of typos or the EPA was smoking a lot more than wood when they did these tests. If these numbers are completely NUTS, then that makes the whole report complete BS.

IS is a 3.2 cu ft firebox and a BK King is 4.32. Yet, they are testing the IS at 50% more BTU output????? Are these numbers coming out of Russia??? I am not interested in getting into the politics of the EPA. I always thought the EPA was supposed to be honest. What am I missing - besides the obvious.

If it's all in their methodology, then IMHO, their methodology is wacko and that makes the entire results null & void.

Calling for anecdotal evidence versus scientific evidence to support your personal beliefs just ain't going to cut it. It looks like size does matter, but not in this case. Doug, make up your own numbers if it will help. Relax.

 

[BrotherBart]

I haven't read your post, but I think it is wrong.

 

[iluvjazznjava]

It probably has something to do with their methodology - I think you need to research that first. Then you can poke holes in it if there is a problem. For me, I didn't pay any attention to EPA ratings when I bought my stove, I just asked the people at the store what an appropriate sized stove was for my setup. They didn't let me down.

 

[Oldman47]

In that list my stove is 11700 to 32700 BTU/hr, the manufacturer's pamphlet says up to 55000 BTU/hr at peak. I don't believe any of those numbers. The mfr also says 600 to 1500 square feet. That is a pretty big range IMO. The stove has just under 2 cu ft so I am hoping it will make a decent enough emergency heater for my home during a power loss without hourly reloads. The grams per hour is more or less a standardized test so maybe you can believe those numbers are related to each other as you go from stove to stove but that is as far as I would go for trusting them. I do not believe my own stove will actually produce that number of grams per hour even if one of the old timers here was running it. With me running it all bets are off.

 

[Tenn Dave]

The testing methodology is exactly the same for each stove, so even if there are some variances in the absolute numbers, directionally they tell the story. Painfully as it may be, it's not the end of the world..

 

[Squirrel]

Duh....I think you'll find that all stoves were tested with the same amount of wood 5.5lbs

 

[danimal1968]

I posted a response to this on the cat/non-cat thread and I think it needs to have it's own thread. I had never seen (or cared to look) at the EPA stats on stoves but this link was posted:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf

Here's a quick summary about 6 stoves I had researched to buy:

Ideal Steel 12-57,000 BTU
BK King 9-39,800 BTU
Isle Royale 10-46,800 BTU
Equinox 12-37,900 BTU
PE Summit 10-37,500 BTU
Progress Hybrid 12-73,000 BTU

EPA is saying that the Progress Hybrid has twice the heat output of the Hearthstone Equinox or the BK King ??????? How many King owners think the IS beats them on max. heat output at all, let alone twice as much? Either I am confused, there are a lot of typos or the EPA was smoking a lot more than wood when they did these tests. If these numbers are completely NUTS, then that makes the whole report complete BS.

IS is a 3.2 cu ft firebox and a BK King is 4.32. Yet, they are testing the IS at 50% more BTU output????? Are these numbers coming out of Russia??? I am not interested in getting into the politics of the EPA. I always thought the EPA was supposed to be honest. What am I missing - besides the obvious.

If it's all in their methodology, then IMHO, their methodology is wacko and that makes the entire results null & void.

According to page 1 of that document, this is not based upon EPA testing. Rather, "An EPA certified wood heaters has been independently tested by an accredited laboratory to determine if it meets the particulate emissions limit..."

 

[BrotherBart]

Duh....I think you'll find that all stoves were tested with the same amount of wood 5.5lbs

Nope. Method 28 bases test load on firebox size.

 

[begreen]

According to page 1 of that document, this is not based upon EPA testing. Rather, "An EPA certified wood heaters has been independently tested by an accredited laboratory to determine if it meets the particulate emissions limit..."

That's terrible grammar.

 

[DougA]

I spoke to one mfg. a few minutes ago and will await a response from the EPA (if I get it) before commenting further.

Suffice to say that those members who have advised not to put any faith in BTU numbers are probably correct.

Sad that the EPA is not a reliable source of information. Who woulda guessed?

 

[begreen]

Ever notice how some construction lumber feels like balsa wood and some feels dense? I can take two fir 2x4s and they can be quite different in grain structure and density. It depends the part of the tree the wood came from and how quickly the tree grew. I suspect the variables will get greater if and when they start testing with cord wood.

 

[Tenn Dave]

I spoke to one mfg. a few minutes ago and will await a response from the EPA (if I get it) before commenting further.

Suffice to say that those members who have advised not to put any faith in BTU numbers are probably correct.

Sad that the EPA is not a reliable source of information. Who woulda guessed?

 

[tarzan]

Ok, I think I found the problem. It turns out that the EPA is a government bureaucracy!

 

[iamlucky13]

It was the EPA that established the gas mileage stats on new cars and it was proven to be wrong. Maybe there's a trend.

Ratings tests are one thing:

A rating of performance determined in a specific set of conditions.

Your mileage may...scratch that....WILL vary UNLESS you perfectly match those conditions.

Does that mean ratings are meaningless? No. Ratings based on a consistent test provide a consistent data point to compare. This applies to both cars and to stoves and to most other items.

A car rated for 35 mpg will get better mileage in the same conditions than one rated for 25 mpg. A stove has less rigorously controlled variables, but one rated for 50,000 BTU/hour can be reasonably expected to have a higher peak output than one rated for 30,000 BTU/hour.

That said, both how you drive and how you burn will affect your actual performance more than most differences between ratings. If you've got a heavy foot, don't anticipate traffic ahead, and regularly drive faster than 70 mph, you're not going to get the rated mileage. Just looking at an EPA list of user-reported actual mileage for the Prius, ~90% of drivers get between 40 and 60 mpg, a huge 50% spread. The difference isn't the cars. It's how they're driven. However, the average result, at 49 mpg, is only 2% away from the EPA rating of 50 mpg.

If you burn non-seasoned wood, manage the air poorly, have an installation that doesn't draft well, etc, you will get sooty burns that don't seem to put out a lot of heat.

 

[pdxdave]

Having gone from a 73,000 BTU stove to a 61,000 BTU stove that puts out 4x the heat and burns 4x as long, I'd say yeah, EPA numbers are useless.

 

[Squirrel]

OP appears to be Canadian and therefore has implicit faith in any government figures.
Guess the smoke up here is getting to us

 

[begreen]

Having gone from a 73,000 BTU stove to a 61,000 BTU stove that puts out 4x the heat and burns 4x as long, I'd say yeah, EPA numbers are useless.

Having gone from a flush insert to a freestanding stove in the room is a major change in the amount of heat convected and radiated into the room. In this case in part at least it's not the just heat but how it's being delivered.

 

[jatoxico]

Never really cared to dig into any of the posted BTU ratings or EPA numbers very much. Maybe the OP can bring back something interesting (prob still on hold, hope he likes Muzak).

One thing though that is often stated is it's all about firebox size. While I would agree within reason, if it was only about how much wood can be fit in the box then old Fishers would put out equivalent heat to more modern stoves of the same firebox size.

Since the newer stoves burn fuel that older stoves can't (smoke) they extract more heat from the same amount of fuel. It then stands to reason that some stoves secondary burn technology could be better at getting the most available BTU's from a given load of fuel making it possible that a stove with a smaller firebox size could put out as much heat as one with a larger box. Now 50% more? IDK about that but some stoves must be better in that regard than others, no?

 

[pdxdave]

Having gone from a flush insert to a freestanding stove in the room is a major change in the amount of heat convected and radiated. In this case in part at least it's not the just heat but how it's delivered.

True - that is definitely a big part of it. The new stove also maintains higher temperatures much more easily, so I question the EPA numbers even if both are on equal playing field for heat delivery.

 

[tarzan]

My former Country Performer 2.1 cf stove has a higher btu rating than the 2.85 cf Princess I have now according to the EPA sight.

 

[DougA]

Does that mean ratings are meaningless? No. Ratings based on a consistent test provide a consistent data point to compare.

No they are not. That is the precise problem. Many of us assumed that the tests were all consistent. Each test is performed by an independent lab chosen by the mfg. and from what I read of the test criteria is that it 'could' be easy enough to get remarkable results that could not be repeated by mere mortals.

For example, where you place the test sensors on the stove and how the stove is operated can make a huge difference. IOW, was the stove set for max. heat or max. length of burn cycle? If your stove is 16 x16"" inside, it will hold the same amount of test wood as a 19x19" stove because the test wood is 4x4 pieces. But a 19x19 will hold 41% more wood if you fill it full. That's a potential for 41% more heat!

I posted a long time ago that test results were only applicable when comparing stoves from the same mfg. I had thought the EPA results would remove the variability but it has not. That's why some members fall asleep during this discussion. They knew it all along.

Yup, I'm from the far north and sadly, we think everyone is telling the truth.

 

[tarzan]

Even the 1.6cf Country Brand Striker is listed at 41,200 max BTU's. That's pumping it out compaired to many stoves almost twice its size.

 

[Tenn Dave]

Ratings tests are one thing:

A rating of performance determined in a specific set of conditions.

Your mileage may...scratch that....WILL vary UNLESS you perfectly match those conditions.

Does that mean ratings are meaningless? No. Ratings based on a consistent test provide a consistent data point to compare. This applies to both cars and to stoves and to most other items.

A car rated for 35 mpg will get better mileage in the same conditions than one rated for 25 mpg. A stove has less rigorously controlled variables, but one rated for 50,000 BTU/hour can be reasonably expected to have a higher peak output than one rated for 30,000 BTU/hour.

That said, both how you drive and how you burn will affect your actual performance more than most differences between ratings. If you've got a heavy foot, don't anticipate traffic ahead, and regularly drive faster than 70 mph, you're not going to get the rated mileage. Just looking at an EPA list of user-reported actual mileage for the Prius, ~90% of drivers get between 40 and 60 mpg, a huge 50% spread. The difference isn't the cars. It's how they're driven. However, the average result, at 49 mpg, is only 2% away from the EPA rating of 50 mpg.

If you burn non-seasoned wood, manage the air poorly, have an installation that doesn't draft well, etc, you will get sooty burns that don't seem to put out a lot of heat.

Well said