EKO 40 efficiency?

[burnclean]

(broken link removed to http://www.heatmor.com/graphics/NEWSRELEASEHeatmorResponse.pdf)

(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html)

Its not a downdraft according to the press release and its cleaner on the EPA website than the downdrafts. Looks like lots of water storage in the unit too.

 

[chrisfallis]

I would add that storage would have helped the Tarm dual fuel boiler that I had installed in 1997. The boiler ran like a champ when I needed heat, but being a chaep bastard, I tried to use it for DHW and on the shoulder seasons. I ende up with a lot of creosote, even on a stainless steel interior chimey. Storage would have helped me quite a bit by cutting down the idle time.

 

[Gooserider]

http://www.heatmor.com/graphics/NEWSRELEASEHeatmorResponse.pdf

(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html)

Its not a downdraft according to the press release and its cleaner on the EPA website than the downdrafts. Looks like lots of water storage in the unit too.

Well, I tend to take press releases with a very large grain of salt - size approx = to one Siberian salt mine... That one I thought particularly noteworthy for lack of meaninful content, and high count of non-defined buzzwords.

The website was similarly underwhelming - no real details about the insides of the unit, no manuals for download, no explanations about their combustion system. The one set of pictures showing the cross section of an unidentified model looked vaguely Garn-like, but not enough details were visible to really tell. I will give them credit for a design that looks a little more sophisticated than the standard OWB box of water with a stack straight out the top, but the complete lack of detailed technology info really makes me wonder what they AREN'T showing...

There was a mention of the EPA units, but no explanation of what changes had been made to make them compliant, indeed the EPA units got little more than a mention that they existed.

I didn't see any mention of the stuff that I know is used in wood stoves or non-gasser furnaces and boilers to encourage secondary combustion, and the temperatures they mentioned made me doubt that there was much occurring, which kills a lot of efficiency right there...

Lastly, I wouldn't consider 250 gallons worth of capacity to be very much storage at all - compare to a Garn... A typical US gasser install w/ storage will typically use closer to 1,000 gallons...

Note, I am not saying the Heatmors are bad units, it may well be that they are perfectly fine. However MY impression of the information on their website left me very unconvinced.

Gooserider

 

[flyingcow]

http://www.heatmor.com/graphics/NEWSRELEASEHeatmorResponse.pdf

(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html)

Its not a downdraft according to the press release and its cleaner on the EPA website than the downdrafts. Looks like lots of water storage in the unit too.

Good luck in what you choose. No matter what you choose, be happy. But be careful and pay attention. There are a lot of wood burners here and many different kinds of units, tremendous amount of experience. There are a lot of "clean burning" units out there, quite a few have not lived up to their claims. A little snake oil type of stuff. Have Fun!