Brother Bart,
Re:
And I am just waiting ‘til it gets discovered that on the 30-NC the primary air control control controls secondary also. That ought to complicate the thermo controlled design just a tad.
Thank you for educating me about the linked drafts. But I'm not so sure that linked primary and secondaries are going to complicate things all that much, if Englander actually does a redesign incorporating thermostatic control.
Maybe initial tests of thermostatic control, with the primary and secondaries linked, will show that that design actually lends itself to thermostatic control, and that part of the stove can stay as designed. (I can see how more air in the first stage, creating more combustion gases, would lead to an increased demand for secondary air, to burn the increased amount of primary-stage smoke.
Perhaps linked primary and secondary drafts will be found to make the most sense, under thermostatic control--who knows?)
If, on the other hand, the two air sources need to have separate controls, I don't see why the secondary couldn't have it's own control lever, or possibly, a second bimetallic spring to control it.
But the more I think about it, having them linked doesn't seem so bad.
I can't wait to see what develops at the Englander Stoveworks!
Hey Harley,
Re:
[quote author="TruePatriot" date="1177716712" Rather, decisions to kill product features seem to come from three areas: a) Accounting
Hey.... it’s not like we are ALL that bad - don’t put us up (or down that low) as the lawyers.
You're probably right--as a former attorney, I have firsthand knowledge of the company I was forcing you to keep, in my assessment of the three "most-wanted" for killing product innovations. I apologize--I don't know you, so I shouldn't have assumed that you're as bad as the risk-averse "bean counters" that are responsible for (all too many) high performance cars not being offered with manual transmissions, nor the bloviating lawyers I've known, either.
I should have said "some" in front of "Bean Counters, Empty Suits and Gasbags."
Mea culpa, my brotha!
Cory
If you feel that you...
...can’t even handle the length of these posts.
You probably don't want to go to law school. (Not that I blame you, or would wish that on anyone--LOL).
But hey--I wonder if you've ever taken a crack at reading the actual statute (EPA, 1990) mandating that stoves not exceed certain maximum particulate emissions, in g/hr.? This law is, IMHO, largely responsible for this renaissance in wood heaters that we currently find ourselves in the midst of....
Here is a link to the statute: (broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/woodstoverule.pdf)
Here is some text from that statute, below, which contains the "meat and potatoes" (by my quick reading) of the emissions limits, in g/hr.
(
Kind of makes 'Ol Elk and me look like Masters of Haiku, by comparison, no? LOL)
§ 60.532 Standards for particulate matter.
Unless exempted under § 60.530, each
affected facility:
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Manufactured on or after July 1,
1990, or sold at retail on or after July 1,
1992, shall comply with the following
particulate matter emission limits as
determined by the test methods and
procedures in § 60.534:
(1) An affected facility equipped with
a catalytic combustor shall not discharge
into the atmosphere any gases
which contain particulate matter in
excess of a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr
(0.009 lb/hr). Particulate emissions during
any test run at any burn rate that
is required to be used in the weighted
average shall not exceed the value calculated
for ‘‘C’’ (rounded to 2 significant
figures) calculated using the following
equation:
(i) At burn rates less than or equal to
2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr),
C = K1BR + K2
Where:
BR = Burn rate in kg/hr (lb/hr) K1 = 3.55 g/kg (0.00355 lb/lb)
K2 = 4.98 g/hr (0.0.011 lb/hr)
(ii) At burn rates greater than 2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr), C = 15 g/hr (0.033 lb/hr).
(2) An affected facility not equipped with a catalytic combustor shall not discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of a weighted average of 7.5 g/
400
I think I would agree with you, Cory--more fun out in the "burn lab" than in the law library! (Hopefully, you won't have to read too much of the above, as a designer, or whatever niche you decide on).
All the best,
Peter
