interesting site gives pellet stove efficiencies.....................

[btuser]

One thing I've noticed about Harman's stats is they're very conservative. Also, are there other bottom-feed stoves in the report? I would expect a bottom-feed stove to push more ash out through the exhaust and therefore show more grams in the test.

 

[MCPO]

One thing I've noticed about Harman's stats is they're very conservative. Also, are there other bottom-feed stoves in the report? I would expect a bottom-feed stove to push more ash out through the exhaust and therefore show more grams in the test.

The Englanders are bottom feeders too.
But what has top feed / bottom feed to do with how much ash is pushed out? And how does that relate to the amount of grams per hour emissions?

 

[webbie]

Englanders are not bottom fed.......they are top fed.
I think just about all stoves other than Harman are top fed these days...might be a rare exception.

 

[MCPO]

Englanders are not bottom fed.......they are top fed.
I think just about all stoves other than Harman are top fed these days...might be a rare exception.

Are you sure of that Craig?
I was under the impression top fed stoves drop pellets from above down a chute into the burn pot below as per lots of remarks how they often bounce out of the pot . At least the ones I`ve seen do.
Englanders have a two auger system . The top auger runs intermittently and feeds pellets into the bottom auger which runs continuously and feeds/pushes pellets directly into the burnpot. The burn pot is not like the Harman and ashes don`t get pushed over the edge.They mainly get blown out and or build up.
Harmans single auger design seems simpler and burnpot design works better in the sense that ashes get pushed over the edge more efficiently and requires cleaning less often.

 

[BDPVT]

One thing I've noticed about Harman's stats is they're very conservative. Also, are there other bottom-feed stoves in the report? I would expect a bottom-feed stove to push more ash out through the exhaust and therefore show more grams in the test.

The Englanders are bottom feeders too.
But what has top feed / bottom feed to do with how much ash is pushed out? And how does that relate to the amount of grams per hour emissions?

The data shows a difference between particle emmissions from under-feed and top-feed pellet stoves. A large fraction of the PM emissions from top-feed models was elemental carbon. Entrained ash, however, was not detected.In contrast, virtually no elemental carbon was detected in the PM from under-feed models, but entrained ash comprised 26% of PM emisions. The gross chemical differences in PM emissions between top-feed and under-feed models account for the difference in ash output reported in this study. The study does not suggest that any one design approach is better than another, only that they all meet or exceed the standard for PM emmisions.

 

[webbie]

Are you sure of that Craig?
I was under the impression top fed stoves drop pellets from above down a chute into the burn pot below as per lots of remarks how they often bounce out of the pot . At least the ones I`ve seen do.

I guess you could call it a side feed - but, IMHO, the pellets still feed in above the grate bottom. That, IMHO, would not make it a true bottom feed. With a Harman, the pellets are not visible as they feed....probably another good definition of a bottom feed stove.

I think Earth Stove used to be bottom feed - Treager? At least as I remember. In terms of efficiency, it was the worst of the pack when tested many years ago. I suspect a top feeder has certain advantages at lower burn rates. It stands to reason that the very small hot fire gained by dropping just a few pellets on a burning bed would have better combustion in everyday use.

However, Harman has spend a lot of time perfecting their system and I certainly was impressed even 10+ years ago.....so I would not hesitate to purchase a true bottom feed....in fact, I think the advantages are many.

 

[imacman]

.....so I would not hesitate to purchase a true bottom feed....in fact, I think the advantages are many.

Just curious Craig.....if you still have a pellet stove in your home, what brand is it?

 

[MCPO]

Are you sure of that Craig?
I was under the impression top fed stoves drop pellets from above down a chute into the burn pot below as per lots of remarks how they often bounce out of the pot . At least the ones I`ve seen do.

I guess you could call it a side feed - but, IMHO, the pellets still feed in above the grate bottom. That, IMHO, would not make it a true bottom feed. With a Harman, the pellets are not visible as they feed....probably another good definition of a bottom feed stove.

I think Earth Stove used to be bottom feed - Treager? At least as I remember. In terms of efficiency, it was the worst of the pack when tested many years ago. I suspect a top feeder has certain advantages at lower burn rates. It stands to reason that the very small hot fire gained by dropping just a few pellets on a burning bed would have better combustion in everyday use.

However, Harman has spend a lot of time perfecting their system and I certainly was impressed even 10+ years ago.....so I would not hesitate to purchase a true bottom feed....in fact, I think the advantages are many.

Craig , I can indeed see fresh pellets feeding into the burnpot on my Harman. I just took a peek so that would rule out that requirement for defining a bottom feeder . The upper portion(1/3) of the auger tube is visible.(at least when burning on low setting)
The two (Englander and Harman) feed systems are certainly not identical but very closely related and much more similar than different. There`s an obvious difference in the height of the auger feed tubes into the burnpot.
The Englander does in fact feed pellets a bit higher into the side of the burnpot than the Harman but I still wouldn`t classify the Englander as a true top feeder since the pellets don`t actually fall from a chute into the pot like true top feeders do. They are pushed in (as you say) sideways .
The Harman also pushes pellets sideways into the bottom of the pot and not actually from underneath the burnpot as bottom feeder would imply . It`s more of a side feeder than bottom feeder. I`m not even sure if there`s an upward angle on the auger but only the burnpot bottom. I guess the major difference is the height of the auger hole.
In summary , the bottom of the Harman auger hole is at the same level as the bottom of the burnpot. The bottom of the Englander auger hole is higher than the bottom of the burnpot.
I wonder how Mike Holten classifies the Englander feed system?

 

[webbie]

American Energy - baby countryside......
Corn/Pellet.......it's been pretty reliable, although I do not use 24/7.
I have cheap NG, so it doesn't pay.......

As a test (and mostly because of my laziness), I have not touched it.......as far a maintenance. So, we'll see when time, dust and other forces combined to stop it!

 

[HEMI]

Are you sure of that Craig?
I was under the impression top fed stoves drop pellets from above down a chute into the burn pot below as per lots of remarks how they often bounce out of the pot . At least the ones I`ve seen do.

I guess you could call it a side feed - but, IMHO, the pellets still feed in above the grate bottom. That, IMHO, would not make it a true bottom feed. With a Harman, the pellets are not visible as they feed....probably another good definition of a bottom feed stove.

I think Earth Stove used to be bottom feed - Treager? At least as I remember. In terms of efficiency, it was the worst of the pack when tested many years ago. I suspect a top feeder has certain advantages at lower burn rates. It stands to reason that the very small hot fire gained by dropping just a few pellets on a burning bed would have better combustion in everyday use.

However, Harman has spend a lot of time perfecting their system and I certainly was impressed even 10+ years ago.....so I would not hesitate to purchase a true bottom feed....in fact, I think the advantages are many.

Mike, I can indeed see fresh pellets feeding into the burnpot on my Harman. I just took a peek so that would rule out that requirement for defining a bottom feeder . The upper portion(1/3) of the auger tube is visible.(at least when burning on low setting)
The two (Englander and Harman) feed systems are certainly not identical but very closely related and much more similar than different. There`s an obvious difference in the height of the auger feed tubes into the burnpot.
The Englander does in fact feed pellets a bit higher into the side of the burnpot than the Harman but I still wouldn`t classify the Englander as a true top feeder since the pellets don`t fall from a chute into the pot . They are pushed in (as you say) sideways .
The Harman also pushes pellets sideways into the bottom of the pot and not actually from underneath the burnpot and I`m not even sure if there`s an upward angle on the auger but only the burnpot bottom. I guess the major difference is the height of the auger hole.
In summary , the bottom of the Harman auger hole is at the same level as the bottom of the burnpot. The bottom of the Englander auger hole is higher than the bottom of the burnpot.
I wonder how Mike Holten classifies the Englander feed system?

i think web means on an englander you can see the auger feed pellets in, on a harman you may see new pellets but you sure don't see the auger turning, unless your running it on its lowest possible setting.

 

[StrangeRanger]

How are you guys getting efficiency out of that table at all? To me that's simply a listing of stove exhaust output. Am I missing something? It's a listing of stoves eligible for Oregon's tax credit program.

 

[BDPVT]

How are you guys getting efficiency out of that table at all? To me that's simply a listing of stove exhaust output. Am I missing something? It's a listing of stoves eligible for Oregon's tax credit program.

You're right. I have read the report that this table is based on. Nothing at all to do with stove efficiency or meaningful comparisons between top-feed or bottom -feed models.

 

[MCPO]

How are you guys getting efficiency out of that table at all? To me that's simply a listing of stove exhaust output. Am I missing something? It's a listing of stoves eligible for Oregon's tax credit program.

The report lists the many stoves that qualify for tax credits. To qualify they must meet criteria of putting out no more than 2.5 grams per hour.
I think it was mentioned more than once in the thread where it has nothing to do with a stoves heating efficiency and it should be taken only as a measure of pollution output.

 

[trogers]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

The only analogy that I can come up with is the different between a cyclist riding a regular bike vs. one of those guys riding a recumbent bike down the road...sure, the recumbent bike is a lot more efficient and easier on your back, but it doesn't look that cool.

Just my biased opinion

 

[BDPVT]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

The only analogy that I can come up with is the different between a cyclist riding a regular bike vs. one of those guys riding a recumbent bike down the road...sure, the recumbent bike is a lot more efficient and easier on your back, but it doesn't look that cool.

Just my biased opinion

Have you guys been following this thread? It has been stated several times already- this is a list of clean burning stoves that qualify for a tax credit based on particle emissions. How does anyone conclude output efficiency from this?

 

[trogers]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

The only analogy that I can come up with is the different between a cyclist riding a regular bike vs. one of those guys riding a recumbent bike down the road...sure, the recumbent bike is a lot more efficient and easier on your back, but it doesn't look that cool.

Just my biased opinion

Have you guys been following this thread? It has been stated several times already- this is a list of clean burning stoves that qualify for a tax credit based on particle emissions. How does anyone conclude output efficiency from this?

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?

 

[BDPVT]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

The only analogy that I can come up with is the different between a cyclist riding a regular bike vs. one of those guys riding a recumbent bike down the road...sure, the recumbent bike is a lot more efficient and easier on your back, but it doesn't look that cool.

Just my biased opinion

Have you guys been following this thread? It has been stated several times already- this is a list of clean burning stoves that qualify for a tax credit based on particle emissions. How does anyone conclude output efficiency from this?

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?

Oh, that was a joke? Sorry i thought it was just a poor analogy!

 

[trogers]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

The only analogy that I can come up with is the different between a cyclist riding a regular bike vs. one of those guys riding a recumbent bike down the road...sure, the recumbent bike is a lot more efficient and easier on your back, but it doesn't look that cool.

Just my biased opinion

Have you guys been following this thread? It has been stated several times already- this is a list of clean burning stoves that qualify for a tax credit based on particle emissions. How does anyone conclude output efficiency from this?

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?

Oh, that was a joke? Sorry i thought it was just a poor analogy!

We'll try to keep a bit more high-brow for you.