If one were to recomend checking out clean burning stoves to the BI moderator

[elkimmeg]

We have our opposition thinking that he might check out a stove shop. Well! why not direct him to the .7 gph model?

http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=169

Another point it is real had to dispute. This year St Louis area got burried in an ice storm many did not have power restored for 2 weeks
I mean what is one going to do? Moving into a shelter is one choice, but if able to Keep warm in your home using the stove for heat and cooking, is that more aventageous?
Think of the other consequences no heat no power very cold frozen pipes. Coupled with abandoned homes attract looters. If it were your home what would your choice be?

remember gas and oil furnaces are powered by electricity

 

[wg_bent]

The Harman Oakwood?

0.8 gph

Oakwood

 

[stoveguy2esw]

or the 30-nc at 1.63 . at 3.5 CF the largest firebox under 2.0GPH on the market. regardless of price. best all around large woodstove ive seen in my 15 years in the buisness (im predudice, but numbers speak for themselves)

that said , my hat is off to VC and HARMON for the way they have stepped up and brought the next generation greenstoves to the market

 

[elkimmeg]

Kudos to ESW USA manufacturing a value line wood heating alternative . You should be real proud of your accomplishments keep up the good work

 

[webbie]

Regarding clean burning comparisons, I think folks are mislead and perhaps misleading others to start quoting and comparing these GPH specs as some kid of a sales point. I thought we went over this all years ago - that the EPA testing in no way simulates real world burning AND that it is very possible that certain stoves which are highly tuned for low GPH may not be user-friendly in the field.

Elk, if I may say so, I think this is bad advice to be giving to folks in general. It is not the right way to shop for a stove.

My opinion, of course, but given as the idea of the forum is to help folks with the best possible courses of action, it is important to understand that this is not a competition for who can get the lowest published numbers...

Anything which meets the standards is extremely clean and efficient....and one stove tested at 4 GPH may work better in your or my home than one tested at 1 GPH.

Summary: Until you see a independent, reputable published study comparing stoves IN THE FIELD which shows that this performance tracks the EPA numbers, it would be prudent to stop suggesting the folks shop in this fashion.

My opinion, for what it's worth!

As far as another thread here about pioneering, I surely don't want to spend 2 grand on the newest model only to find out that it doesn't work right in my situation or with my wood due to the highly tuned nature of the unit.

The innovation will continue to happen whether or not we buy a 3GPH or a .7 GPH stove, but more than anything we want a stove that works in many various situations as opposed to perfect wood, chimney, operator, weather, etc.

 

[PAJerry]

Craig is right. So many factors determine the 'clean burning' of any stove, and it seems that most of them are controlled by the operator. If you burn wet wood, keep a smoulding fire in the firebox, or have a poorly maintained stove you can produce more pollution with an EPA stove than someone that has an older stove, maintained well, burning good,dry wood. The new stoves are probably designed to try to compensate for the problems of bad operation, but they can't do it all, until there is a display on the front that flashes ' Hey dope, the wood is too wet to burn' or ' Either burn hot or shut it off!', then locks the loading door. Personal responsibility rests largely with the stove operator, don't blame the stove.

Elk's comment regarding the need for an alternative heat source during power outages is very good. We have all experienced the great inconvenience of electrical problems and with the nature of today's homes, it can be a very expensive disaster if it goes on too long. Also, what about those who can't afford to heat with the expensive fossil fuels? There may be more than we think, and an economic downturn will create even more. Wood is pretty inexpensive and widely available and used woodstove can be had reasonably. The people over in 'burningissues' are all probably in better economic shape than most, and don't have to deal with simple survival issues.

 

[Gunner]

Very well said Craig!



If for some strange reason I was ever talking to the the crazies at BI and they wanted to look at stoves for their own info, I would recommend ANY EPA CERT STOVE as the OPERATOR, WOOD USED AND MAINTANENCE of "said" stove has far more of any impact on clean burning than gph.

Excuse me I must go bang my head against the wall now.......

 

[elkimmeg]

Has anyone ever bought a new car without looking at the sticker and checking out MPG. Craig I have to differ here with you first. This post was geared to the participating members at BI
But There is a hell of a lot of difference at .7 to 7.5. Equate that in terms of MGP a car that gets 20 mpgs the increase between . 7 and 7.5 that car would achieve 215 MPG

Are you saying well the car that gets 22 MPG is an improvement to the 20, but falls real short fo the one getting 215.. Craig yoi have to get out more often homes are bought using sq ft comparisons, cars are bought using MPGs. wide screen TV's bought comparing size, our poulation / buying public uses comparison numbers . Is this the best way to shop maybe not but it is one way. True I agree, with the draft issues. Again if one wanted to show off the latest technology which car would you point out? The 20mpg one and make excuses ,as to why one should use because its motor production run history is longer, or would you direct him /her to the one that gets 215mpgs . Harman oakwood is also a good choice at .8gph. Why would I want to direct the BI moderator towards one of our dirtiest stoves? I would direct him to industry break through a non cat stove surpassing the 1gph plateau.

 

[Mo Heat]

Everyone is making good points in general, but Elk is talking about the BI guy specifically. His shopping criteria may be heavily weighted to particulate output. After all, he's the moderator of an anit-particulate matter web site! I suspect this criteria is more important to this individual than most any feature, or even ease of use.

On the other hand... I don't think that guy is really serious about buying a stove. He is probably just looking for data to support his position. My opinion, of course, but it seems reasonable. And their web site clearly states that the EPA is misleading us and in their own words, "EPA Misleads Citizens". The article of the same name appears as a link on their home page, near the bottom. If they don't believe the EPA, they are not going to believe anyone from a wood burning web site IMO.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

My question to VC at the show went something like this.. "How draft sensitive is a stove that is 83% efficient?" there answer was...." hmm we havent had any complaints."
Not quite the answer i was looking at. I think i would rather have a stove that had 10%-15% less heat efficiency that could perform under many conditions then a stove that had to be burned perfectly to make it work.
I will hand it to VC this year. There gas fireplace lineup is impressive. There woodstoves are much the same. I still dont like the bolt frankenstien handles on them, and there colors are pretty flat.. but overall build quality is superb.
I spent most of the day with a VC rep yesterday. We happen to have the same flight. It was spooky when he started telling me to expect the rear casting on the everburn stoves to glow.

 

[elkimmeg]

It was spooky when he started telling me to expect the rear casting on the everburn stoves to glow.

Pretty hard to get them to glow if they draft poorly? Mixed information. If draft sensitive,then how would they draft enought to get that hot?

If able to overdraft, I would not call that sensitive,. A condition for years an inline damper solved. Actully it is you, MSG ,that recomends the inline damper to solve that.

 

[begreen]

the BI guy specifically. His shopping criteria...

I think he be a she running BI.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

spooky in the de'javu sense.

I think any stove will draft on a 30' Chimney.
Elk, my point is how well do they draft on marginal chimneys. We all know chimney heat is the driving factor of draft, you take the heat out of the chimney and what do you have. Less draft.

Im considering carrying these stoves. I didnt waste my time at the show going over VC with a fine tooth comb. If a stove is too efficient, how forgiving will it be to the novice wood burner? How clean will it be on a short chimmey? These are questions i asked, and i didnt get a answer for. Its exciting to me to see these companies moving forward, but when do you get to the point of diminshing returns? I think the GPH rating is a pissing contest. Most i talked to this week agree.

 

[begreen]

MSG, did he give you any indication of issues you might meet at higher altitudes with a short stack or with exterior chimneys?

---

On the Gph side, I agree we are splitting hairs here at the forum, but from a marketing standpoint Elk's car analogy is a good one. Folks do look at and buy by the numbers. We've seen it with max btus, sq. ft heated numbers, etc.

 

[elkimmeg]

my point is how well do they draft on marginal chimneys.

A great question. Any manufacturer would have a dffercult time answering that question. This discussion is worthy of a separate post

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

absolutly BG. The only differnce with the car analogy is that the more efficient car will offer the same service to the customer as the less efficent car. The more efficient woodstove might not work at all, whereas the car will still roll down the street. Thats how i see it. I agree totally its a good move for these stove manufactures to make there stoves as clean as possible, but i think the motivation is marketing, not necessarly the enviroment, and they could actually negativly impact the inviroment if they cant achieve complete combustion if there isnt enough draft.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

my point is how well do they draft on marginal chimneys.

A great question. Any manufacturer would have a dffercult time answering that question. This discussion is worthy of a separate post

we will save it for later

i think i would send the BI people to a good hearth shop with knowledgable sales people reguadless of what they sale. Elk, i will keep you posted through the PM system on the status of my dealership with VC. Im sure i will have some questions for you.

 

[begreen]

Actually, I hadn't thought about it that way, but it is appropriate. The first generation hybrids relied a lot on battery assist to make up for a small gas engine. They got great mileage under many circumstances. However, when put in mountain country, when the uphill runs could be many miles long, they exhausted their battery reserve and had to run solo on the gas engine until a downhill run could recharge the battery. This condition offered those drivers a sub-optimal experience. For them, the high efficiency design was a liability.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

I think i would recommend a stove that will work well. We dont want to have a BI moderator try to operate a stove that doesnt start easy, and by ALL means doenst downdraft in there home. So it would take a site inspection to look for negative pressure causes, i would try to encourage a internal strait chimney no less then 16' tall, no more then 25' tall, and a non cat that is brainless to operate. I would insure that they had a dry supply of wood by furnishing them a harbor freight moister meter, then i would like to see if there opinion changes. If the mod overthere got anything less, it may help his/her cause.

 

[elkimmeg]

MSg lets not forget they sell cat stoves Time tested like the Encore and Intrepid II. 20 year of them being in the field and working quite well.
This everburn design is not really new, same horizontal burn technology as in the cat stoves. I mean the Intrepid II I think is 1.2 GPH the Defiant is like 1.5 gph. Uptill last year they were the cleanest burning stoves.. Ok I officially sayiing this, The Harman Oakwood and the Lopi Leyden enploys the same technology as the everburn stoves. That's right the same technology.
That's why one should not suprise Hanman OPakwood boast .8 gph. The Harman is also cast and enamaled at Vermont castings

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

the reason i picked out non cat in my recomendation is that there is a chance for user error with a catalytic stove, expecially if the user is trying to make it fail.

 

[webbie]

Has anyone ever bought a new car without looking at the sticker and checking out MPG. Craig I have to differ here with you first. T
Are you saying well the car that gets 22 MPG is an improvement to the 20,

Car analogy does not fit, since the fuel is always exactly the same and the fuel control systems are computer operated, leaving very little to chance - BUT, even with that the EPA has recently made manufacturers move their numbers down!

Turns out a well designed gas or diesel engine will do as well as a hybrid in many cases, with vastly less cost and complexity.

My point is that you if one buys stoves by the numbers, they should be able to know that those numbers are how the stove performs in everyday use. Can you tell me this, Elk?

Can you tell me exactly the test protocol for getting these advertised numbers? What type of wood, what draft settings, etc.?

I had some wood stove design engineers at the booth tell me that manufacturers are designing to the EPA spec. In other words, they are not designing to user-friendliness and then trying to get the numbers down.

Until a real world test of hundreds of stoves is done, this stuff is just blowing smoke (misleading). I don't doubt that stoves are getting better, but using these number (choosing a 1.2 instead of a 1.8 GPH etc.) is plain foolish IMHO. I still remember the first generation of pellet stoves which had "numbers" of 75% to 90%+ published efficiency. OMNI did a real world test and they ranged from 42% to 72% - BIG DIFFERENCE.

So let the buyer beware.

 

[elkimmeg]

Can you tell me exactly the test protocol for getting these advertised numbers? What type of wood, what draft settings, etc.?

I" give it a shot. The wood rtype is fir cut in 2/ 4 pieces weighed to be 15 lbs the bed of coals is established wood load places x amount of time to damper.
Filters set to catch the particulates in one hours' time. Since a cat stove has only one position damper closed. I did not read the computer read outs but,
I can tell you no vissible sign of smoke w exited the chimney. less that 2gph on the filters/ The same test required for a every stove that passed the Epa.. I will find the link that I have published and posted here many times so that you can re- read the test proceedures. Yes I do have a good idea of the protocol.

Me i

 

[begreen]

Here's the actual multi-week testing data by the EPA done in 1998. It's an interesting data set. Oddly, the catalytics did poorer for particle emissions than I would have expected, although they were better for their reduction of CO.

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r00100/600r00100.htm
Appendex C: Emissions Results
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r00100/600R00100AppC.pdf

 

[begreen]

And this report is probably what the BI folks need. The conclusion is pragmatic, though not totally wood friendly. But it does point out the need to migrate from older, non-airtight stoves and clearly shows the need for improvement over fireplaces and non-airtight stoves. It has emissions data comparisons for fireplaces, stoves (old and new), pellet stoves, etc.. Pellet stoves really shined here.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/CAOL/wood_stove_replace/wood_stove_rep_e.cfm