outdoor wood boiler loader
- Thread starter horseman
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
As a long time lurker I must say this is an excellent place to learn, and I have learned much, however, I registered in order to reply to this post. Why just not say nothing when someone posts something that the "gasser mafia" happens to not like? I've seen so many posts where smart mouth replies and inside jokes seem to crawl out of the woodwork and the thing I see in common for the most part is the cost of the system the wisecracker has. OWB's are not going to go away(by the way I dont own one) old school woodstoves are not going to go away, low tech furnaces arent going to either. Tell me something guys, if taken to its conclusion coudnt this lead to a Garn or nothing point of view? You all know the Tarms and Ekos and whatever arent as good, are you ready to apoligize for them? For alot of people burning wood is about saving money and nothing else, not efficiency not bragging rights not going green. If you have an unlimited supply of wood and live half a mile form anyone else why would you care if someong built a fire in a 55 gallon drum? If someone asked you "what kind of car should I buy?" would you say "just buy Rolls Royce" without knowing anything about them and what they can afford or might need? Come on. On a slightly different note I did love it when horse man had to explain the the big end going in first ment the other end would go in too, and that yes indeed the roller rolls both ways. For someone 60ish who burns 2500 of fossil a year they may not want to spend $20,000 on a system that will run 4 or 5 months a year, just sayin.
The Garn is not the ultimate in efficiency.
The advantage of the Garn is that it is simple, robust and reasonably efficient.
Have a look at the Viessmann range for the Rolls Royce comparison.
The Garn is more akin to a Diesel truck from your favourite American manufacturer.
I am not sure what the OWB car comparison would be, nothing currently manufactured.
The advantage of the Garn is that it is simple, robust and reasonably efficient.
Have a look at the Viessmann range for the Rolls Royce comparison.
The Garn is more akin to a Diesel truck from your favourite American manufacturer.
I am not sure what the OWB car comparison would be, nothing currently manufactured.
"As a long time lurker I must say this is an excellent place to learn, and I have learned much, however, I registered in order to reply to this post. Why just not say nothing when someone posts something that the “gasser mafia†happens to not like? I’ve seen so many posts where smart mouth replies and inside jokes seem to crawl out of the woodwork and the thing I see in common for the most part is the cost of the system the wisecracker has. OWB’s are not going to go away(by the way I dont own one) old school woodstoves are not going to go away, low tech furnaces arent going to either. Tell me something guys, if taken to its conclusion coudnt this lead to a Garn or nothing point of view? You all know the Tarms and Ekos and whatever arent as good, are you ready to apoligize for them? For alot of people burning wood is about saving money and nothing else, not efficiency not bragging rights not going green. If you have an unlimited supply of wood and live half a mile form anyone else why would you care if someong built a fire in a 55 gallon drum? If someone asked you “what kind of car should I buy?†would you say “just buy Rolls Royce†without knowing anything about them and what they can afford or might need? Come on. On a slightly different note I did love it when horse man had to explain the the big end going in first ment the other end would go in too, and that yes indeed the roller rolls both ways. For someone 60ish who burns 2500 of fossil a year they may not want to spend $20,000 on a system that will run 4 or 5 months a year, just sayin."
Being Sicilian, I wanna' retain that comment after yer gone.
While some members here are passionate about using a secondary combustion appliance, the intent is good.
And since yer such a smartazz . . . when the roller rolls 'the other way' and you now have a log - too heavy to handle, apparently - that is now on fire, now what?
Seriously . . . you lurked all this time, then joined for that? Thanks so much :smirk:
Possa la vostra moglie mostrano un altro uomo il suo viso mentre siete orgasmo agguato forum Internet
Being Sicilian, I wanna' retain that comment after yer gone.
While some members here are passionate about using a secondary combustion appliance, the intent is good.
And since yer such a smartazz . . . when the roller rolls 'the other way' and you now have a log - too heavy to handle, apparently - that is now on fire, now what?
Seriously . . . you lurked all this time, then joined for that? Thanks so much :smirk:
Possa la vostra moglie mostrano un altro uomo il suo viso mentre siete orgasmo agguato forum Internet
cdwise said:
I was the first to post so I'll give you a quick answer.....In the starter post it was stated that he had finally "found" a item when it was apparent that he was involved with the selling of this item. Instead of totally identifying himself as such, it looked like a lurker who's first post was this trying to sell something without advertising. I love this forum and don't want to start filling it up with "as seen on TV" crap. This loader will work as described, but I wouldn't purchase one. I wasn't bashing the idea, it was the way it was presented as "found", not as "I'm selling this". As for $20,000 grand on a system, I had a Central Boiler 6048 and I have just a little more money in my present system than the OWB.....and it's twice the system.
I've thought about a "loader" before for my wife on the days I'm working. It was more akin to a flat lift table that could lift the wood from the ground to the door level, and then she could just push the wood in from the table.
By the way, whether you like OWB's or not, they're rarely meant to be filled all the way up. If you leave them 1/4 to 1/2 empty when you fill them, they burn cleaner and longer. Same goes for cured, split hardwood rather than large chunks too big to lift.
By the way, whether you like OWB's or not, they're rarely meant to be filled all the way up. If you leave them 1/4 to 1/2 empty when you fill them, they burn cleaner and longer. Same goes for cured, split hardwood rather than large chunks too big to lift.
cdwise said:
I would think that after lurking here you would find out that owb are the most inefficient way to burn wood. Hence epa's regulations.
At what point are you saving when you factor in twice the wood harvested for the same amount of heat?
I will even say that garns are not the best, most user friendly, yes.
23,000 for a complete system or 23,000 for a new vehicle. Wonder what will be worth more in ten years?
And when oil hits 150 a barrel so everything else will go up to, and every tom,dick and harry runs out and buys a owb and gas axes every tree do we say, there has to be a more efficient way to burn wood?
3/4's of these expensive boilers are quality built and will last a life time.
2500 this year might be 5000 in two years
Iseedeadbtu, since I've been called a smartazz i will answer your question in kind. If said log rolled up hill out of the fire box having caught fire instantly and the person overpowered by the up hill rolling flaming log got out of the way I'm sure the person loading would watch in speechless shuddering horror as the fire raced the 100 or so feet across the snow covered ground and burned "some poor shlub's house down" (the person loading the log, your words.)
Garnifacation, I couldnt agree more than a quality boiler is a wise investment and will save one alot of money, and must be a joy to operate. I think they are great and am planning on installing a Garn when I build my new house good lord willing. That unit (the Garn) is almost impossible to find fault with, how many mechanical things can say that? So well thought out and beautifully simple
! My only gripe is this, burning wood is the basis for this and all other discussions here, the method of burning being secondary. People being gently steered tword the secondary or inverted combustion applinces is understandable, especially from those who own them however I fail to see where deriding people who for whatever reason dont own the advanced models serves any purpose. There is another post in this forum where the founder tells a poster not ot buy a outdoor forced air furnace, talks about it smoking out the house and the neighbors, says it's a questionable product, talkes about effiency etc. If you went to that makers website I'll bet you would find they would have guidlines a to chimany height and could tell you the R value of insulation in the furnace itself, an outdoor furnace is the same as an indoor furnace, its just in an insulated enclosore, and it gets the smoke dirt and fire out of the house. The point being if the poster asked which indoor furnace he shoud consider there would have likely been no comment as to the dasterdly nature of said furnace. As far as the EPA goes, the regs have to do with emmisions and I guess you could say therefore wood usage, but I dont think they would know or care about the link between the two, they just want things to burn with as little smoke as possible. Look at the Washington regs. they plainly say that in certin circumstances its proobably best to not burn wood, this could be said of every wood burner every time in comparison to gas, slippery slopes and the EPA go hand in hand. I know people burning 35 yr old woodstoves and 20 year old OWB's and are happy as a clam with both. People want to get off propane and where I live there is no shortage of dead or waste trees to help them get there. Someday there will be few woodburners that dont meet strict standards, untill then get what you want burn wood and save money.
Cheers and thank you
Garnifacation, I couldnt agree more than a quality boiler is a wise investment and will save one alot of money, and must be a joy to operate. I think they are great and am planning on installing a Garn when I build my new house good lord willing. That unit (the Garn) is almost impossible to find fault with, how many mechanical things can say that? So well thought out and beautifully simple
! My only gripe is this, burning wood is the basis for this and all other discussions here, the method of burning being secondary. People being gently steered tword the secondary or inverted combustion applinces is understandable, especially from those who own them however I fail to see where deriding people who for whatever reason dont own the advanced models serves any purpose. There is another post in this forum where the founder tells a poster not ot buy a outdoor forced air furnace, talks about it smoking out the house and the neighbors, says it's a questionable product, talkes about effiency etc. If you went to that makers website I'll bet you would find they would have guidlines a to chimany height and could tell you the R value of insulation in the furnace itself, an outdoor furnace is the same as an indoor furnace, its just in an insulated enclosore, and it gets the smoke dirt and fire out of the house. The point being if the poster asked which indoor furnace he shoud consider there would have likely been no comment as to the dasterdly nature of said furnace. As far as the EPA goes, the regs have to do with emmisions and I guess you could say therefore wood usage, but I dont think they would know or care about the link between the two, they just want things to burn with as little smoke as possible. Look at the Washington regs. they plainly say that in certin circumstances its proobably best to not burn wood, this could be said of every wood burner every time in comparison to gas, slippery slopes and the EPA go hand in hand. I know people burning 35 yr old woodstoves and 20 year old OWB's and are happy as a clam with both. People want to get off propane and where I live there is no shortage of dead or waste trees to help them get there. Someday there will be few woodburners that dont meet strict standards, untill then get what you want burn wood and save money. Cheers and thank you
BLAH BLAH BLAH Where did you first hear about the Garn? Probally right here on this site..The OWB is a smogging, inefficient,expensive, relic that has already fallen to the wayside, and I would love to see an OWB operating in a house LMAO. Even the aquatherm unprotected is built for a nonliving shelter. Most the people on this site have owned at least one OWB, and they comment with intellegent experience not sales pitch smoke and mirrors of impossible efficiency ratings.. Listen you want to talk about OWBs make your own site and talk about them all you want, If you don't like the ACCURATE information shared on this site by it's contributors then crawl back under your rock and believe what you want to believe. Buy an OWB, be happy, stay warm and quit with the wineing..
Holy shi+, are we back in MSN chat rooms??
Of all the secondary combustion hydronic units represented in Hearth, the GW/Seton/Adobe/GreenFire are probably the ones getting loaded with the biggest, heaviest solid fuel. I would never want to put a chunk into my unit that was so big/heavy that I needed mechanical assistance. From comments by O/O of Euro-styled down-draft hydronics, these unit are being loaded with much smaller diameter rounds and/or splits. The invention from the OP is not going to be very practical for any of the aforementioned.
Based on anecdotal evidence, the invention may be helpful to OWB O/O's. Though some members here may think OWBs are anathema, I'm not of that camp. I think using an OWB correctly, and properly sited is better than burning fossil fuels. But, from what I am hearing about costs of new OWB unit - compared to secondary combustion units - I would not recommend the purchase of a new OWB. But to each his own. If yer gonna use an OWB, use it in such a way as to maximize efficiency. There appear many members here that switched from an OWB to a secondary combustion hydronic. I don't recall any switching back, but maybe I overlooked someone.
But you startin' out with your gassifier mafia and Garn being the rolls Royce . . . . makes me wonder if you've actually paid any attention while you've been lurkin? . . .
Anyway . . .Just Rock on. Pissin matches and name callin just makes people who actually have something constructive to contribute - as opposed to peeps like you and me - decide to discontinue contributing.
Of all the secondary combustion hydronic units represented in Hearth, the GW/Seton/Adobe/GreenFire are probably the ones getting loaded with the biggest, heaviest solid fuel. I would never want to put a chunk into my unit that was so big/heavy that I needed mechanical assistance. From comments by O/O of Euro-styled down-draft hydronics, these unit are being loaded with much smaller diameter rounds and/or splits. The invention from the OP is not going to be very practical for any of the aforementioned.
Based on anecdotal evidence, the invention may be helpful to OWB O/O's. Though some members here may think OWBs are anathema, I'm not of that camp. I think using an OWB correctly, and properly sited is better than burning fossil fuels. But, from what I am hearing about costs of new OWB unit - compared to secondary combustion units - I would not recommend the purchase of a new OWB. But to each his own. If yer gonna use an OWB, use it in such a way as to maximize efficiency. There appear many members here that switched from an OWB to a secondary combustion hydronic. I don't recall any switching back, but maybe I overlooked someone.
But you startin' out with your gassifier mafia and Garn being the rolls Royce . . . . makes me wonder if you've actually paid any attention while you've been lurkin? . . .
Anyway . . .Just Rock on. Pissin matches and name callin just makes people who actually have something constructive to contribute - as opposed to peeps like you and me - decide to discontinue contributing.
I would like to say any and all boiler users are welcome here, YES OWBs also. But if somebody is in the purchasing market for a boiler that is going to be around for the next 20 years why get a design that is already 20 plus years old??
Taco, you and I agree then that alot of people get into woodburning at a low level and then move up the the secondary burn stuff most things work that way (houses cars etc.) I have no intention of buying a OWB the main reason being what I've learned here but those who do or have have done nothing wrong. The OWB aren't going anywhere and the reg's that are in place now EPA phase 2 have given them a new and indefinite lease on life, im sure they outsell the secondary burn stuff 1000 (1000's?) to one. Not an endorsemnt just a fact. A unified front of people who heat with wood would go alot farther tword thwarting the people who would love to tell you how often you can fire you boiler that a factionalized group throwing each other under the bus.
Garn, could'nt have said it as well myself
Garn, could'nt have said it as well myself
I think that the near future will see more gassers & far fewer OWB's as the price advantage that OWB's held has shrunk as evidenced by the posted prices by advertisers on this site.
When one compares OWB's & gassers on an actual btu production basis (real world not dealer hype) the gasser in most cases is cheaper on a btu production basis than the OWB.
The gasser also produces far less pollution on a per unit consumed basis.
Real world testing is in that way like tractor performance ratings, everyone starts with dealer hype, then they go into the field for testing & the results are published for all as to which ones produce their claimed horsepower & how much fuel they use doing so, along with a lot of other really important info. Me I prefer real world testing as it eliminates virtually all the dealer BS.
Add to that the fact that more municipalities are passing laws that make OWB's difficult if not impossible to operate & any advantage that an OWB owner thought they might have quickly vanishes.
When one compares OWB's & gassers on an actual btu production basis (real world not dealer hype) the gasser in most cases is cheaper on a btu production basis than the OWB.
The gasser also produces far less pollution on a per unit consumed basis.
Real world testing is in that way like tractor performance ratings, everyone starts with dealer hype, then they go into the field for testing & the results are published for all as to which ones produce their claimed horsepower & how much fuel they use doing so, along with a lot of other really important info. Me I prefer real world testing as it eliminates virtually all the dealer BS.
Add to that the fact that more municipalities are passing laws that make OWB's difficult if not impossible to operate & any advantage that an OWB owner thought they might have quickly vanishes.
- Status
Similar threads
