Gentlemen,
Emission and efficiency results can be improved with lambda control and a simple run time hour meter. While neither of these technological add-ons can completely fix operation with poor fuels or bad techniques, they give ample feedback to the user so that shortcomings can be realized more easily. Until I had an hour meter for instance, I had no idea how severely over-sized my boiler was for my house and 500 gallons of storage. The boiler was entering slumber long after I lighted it and had gone to bed. In the morning, the boiler had burned out cleanly and there was no evidence of slumber. After seeing hours of run vs. hours of slumber, I put in a smaller boiler. Here is how the lambda control helps: Wet wood will generally result in higher oxygen readings and low stack temperatures. Some boilers will simply shut off when thresholds for those measurements are reached. A careless operator will likely learn best practice more quickly when their machine will not cooperate with improper use. Of course lambda control also cleans up even normal and good operation, but it really can help educate a lazy, naïve, or ignorant operator.
On another note that has come up in this string, the thing that a lot of people don't talk about is that EPA is not currently going to begin the NSPS with a single test method that allows comparability across all wood burning boilers (OWB, IWB, HH or whatever one may call it) and better yet, all wood burning devices. At the moment, I understand that a consumer may be faced with up to three different methods for wood boilers with very poor comparability across the methods. While EPA compliance will be a good thing, the consumer will be left with many questions about what to buy if trying to compare across models with different test methods. For the benefit of the consumer and wood burning in general, I would like to see all of the confusing data be put to rest with a single, reliable test method.
A Froling FHG (that we loaned NYSERDA) was used to help develop the new Brookhaven test method for boilers with remote thermal storage. Having been updated as to the test method from time to time, I find the method to be sound, fair, accurate, honest and somewhat more expedient than Method 28 or ASTM2618. In fact, I think the method while being expedient, most accurately portrays normal use compared to all other current methods. However, The method is still not one that can be used with boilers that are not connected to remote thermal storage.
Emission and efficiency results can be improved with lambda control and a simple run time hour meter. While neither of these technological add-ons can completely fix operation with poor fuels or bad techniques, they give ample feedback to the user so that shortcomings can be realized more easily. Until I had an hour meter for instance, I had no idea how severely over-sized my boiler was for my house and 500 gallons of storage. The boiler was entering slumber long after I lighted it and had gone to bed. In the morning, the boiler had burned out cleanly and there was no evidence of slumber. After seeing hours of run vs. hours of slumber, I put in a smaller boiler. Here is how the lambda control helps: Wet wood will generally result in higher oxygen readings and low stack temperatures. Some boilers will simply shut off when thresholds for those measurements are reached. A careless operator will likely learn best practice more quickly when their machine will not cooperate with improper use. Of course lambda control also cleans up even normal and good operation, but it really can help educate a lazy, naïve, or ignorant operator.
On another note that has come up in this string, the thing that a lot of people don't talk about is that EPA is not currently going to begin the NSPS with a single test method that allows comparability across all wood burning boilers (OWB, IWB, HH or whatever one may call it) and better yet, all wood burning devices. At the moment, I understand that a consumer may be faced with up to three different methods for wood boilers with very poor comparability across the methods. While EPA compliance will be a good thing, the consumer will be left with many questions about what to buy if trying to compare across models with different test methods. For the benefit of the consumer and wood burning in general, I would like to see all of the confusing data be put to rest with a single, reliable test method.
A Froling FHG (that we loaned NYSERDA) was used to help develop the new Brookhaven test method for boilers with remote thermal storage. Having been updated as to the test method from time to time, I find the method to be sound, fair, accurate, honest and somewhat more expedient than Method 28 or ASTM2618. In fact, I think the method while being expedient, most accurately portrays normal use compared to all other current methods. However, The method is still not one that can be used with boilers that are not connected to remote thermal storage.
