Check out the newly released EPA test procedures. The EPA is moving more towards the realization that cordwood provides more accurate real world results. In preparation for 2020 regs, the EPA is currently allowing manufacturer's to test with cordwood instead of cribwood and has even adjusted the maximum allowable particulate number higher by 0.5 when testing using real cordwood.
Regardless of whether stoves are tested with cordwood or cribwood, the numbers should be somewhat meaningful for consumer comparison. I did notice that the independent lab Blaze King hired to test the Princess is a different independent lab than the one hired to test the Chinook. But, assuming the labs are competent and unbiased, that shouldn't affect the results significantly.
As a consumer, what I most want to know is why the test results for the Chinook and the Princess are so different seeing how they are so similar in terms of firebox size, construction and combustor dimensions. I assume they were both tested using the same cribwood.
BKVP, I appreciate any light you can shed on this. But I think you have your work cut out for you if you think the 6100 btu/hr min. burn figure is error considering this is the number Blaze King filed with the EPA. Since the Princess is required to be tested under the same protocol as the Chinook, why are the numbers different by a factor of almost 2?
First off, the EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance has made many mistakes in their listings. I will look into this further. As to your observations on the cordwood test method, I sit on the cordwood committee, serve as a member of the Government Affairs Commitee and currently serve as co-chair to the solid fuel section of our industry.
1). There is no approved cordwood method.
2). EPA has been conducting studies in a private lab using cordwood.
3). Any approval by EPA for a cordwood "alternate method" is a one shot deal. Burning crib fuel, with an approved EPA method that was fully vetted during the NSPS, almost always permits a manufacturer to receive a five year extension, every five years, for filing the required papaerwork. EPA has not offered the same for cordwood alternate tested units and in fact the rule states that they have the right to revocation an approval and require a manufacturer to retest if an advanced cordwood method is determined to be made available.
4). There are no cordwood tested and approved wood heaters on the market. The first company to submit for such a test using a yet to be approved alternate method, retracted their application and tested with crib fuel.
5). Method 28R, which is the current method, stems from the state of Oregon working with industry and air regulators to develop a wood test method. It was never stated or implied that crib fuel testing would be reflective of real world emissions. Instead, the tight, very deliberate test method, was designed to make it such that one appliance could be compared to another appliance in terms of efficacy.
As to Princess and Chinook data comparisons, I will look into the test reports and post back here.
Highbeam, I agree with the lack of confidence by consumers in posted data. That is why I have posted before, several times, the benefit of this site is for consumers to communicate without prejudice their real world performance attributes for the products they purchase. That and education.
