If space and initial cost were not factors (two big factors), are there any reasons not to go Garn? After doing all he research, talking to enough guys who "know",and reading all the great info on this site, it just seems that the Garn is the most user friendly, reliable, efficient and simple (less moving parts that could fail) way to burn wood. Is it fair to say that other systems that have boiler and storage separate will be less expensive in the long run, or is all the install time and effort in "tweeking" worth it. I don't want to study the roots, Iwant to pick the fruit.
Why not Garn?
- Thread starter Todd Drost
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
todd, i reflect your opinion about the all in one garn vs. boiler and separate storage, even though they accomplish the same end result , i believe the initial boiler alone investment without storage is a comfortable step for many, wether it be lower initial investment to get to quality gasification, space constraints, it costs money to dedicate a separate boiler building, the list goes on to dress a garn, however if you decide to add storage to your stand alone boiler, i would bet the costs in the end are not far off the price of a garn or swit--r boiler
I did not get a Garn because of difficulty in self-installing and moving the unit, too heavy. Also, I did not know how much storage I wanted. Also, price really high, and I thought I could get a less expensive tank arrangement. As it turned out, I got a Tarm Solo Plus 40 and just added 1000 gal LP storage, tank, going pressurizied. Only $850 for the tank, delivered by local LP gas co. I can relocate this boiler and tank if I need to.
I wonder if anyone has done a comprehensive efficiency test on the entire system using a Garn (to some degree like nofossil did)?? There are losses involved with installing equipment outdoors and with buried pipes, etc.
Webmaster said:
Nothing scientific just field evidence and comparing notes from all the different installs we have done. We have never installed one outside a conditioned space of some kind. Sheds, barns, outbuildings, greenhouses etc., nothing kept at less than 55*.
With a Garn, heat loss between the fire and the storage is obviously eliminated. Standby loss once the heat is "stored" is totally up to the installer due to the fact that they are field insulated. Standby loss in a well insulated enclosure is very minimal, .5 or less per hour with no load on the Garn. (this is an enclosure of the type I had pictures of in a previous thread) The unseen advantage of adequate storage with any boiler is the elimination of losses while idling and pickup losses that occur whenever the boiler ramps up again coming out of idle. Storage enables you to burn the whole wood load hot and fast and therefore at the best obtainable efficiency.
As an example from the field, we replaced a Hardy that I had installed for a customer 10 years ago, with a Garn 2000 this fall. The Hardy was heating his house and DHW only. The customer partitioned a 4,200 sq ft area in their pole barn, we installed infloor tubing in the slab with 1 1/2" blueboard under the whole thing. The Garn was installed in that large room with 16' ceilings and piped 285' (one way) to the house with 2" pex. The Hardy was located only 50' from the house and piped in with 3/4" PB tube as per manufacturer recommendations at the time. (since then I have learned to think for myself and not always follow directions of the manufacturer) When we removed the Hardy, I'd have to say that the factory installed insulation was down to about 1/2 of its original value due to small furry animals taking up residence in a nice cozy place outdoors. (Something I have seen on nearly all OWB's I've had the pleasure of replacing)
I ran into the owner of this system a couple weeks ago and he informed me that the Garn, even though it's heating three times the cubic feet of space, is using less wood than the Hardy did heating his house alone. Anecdotal type evidence to be sure but, three times the cubic feet of conditioned space on even 10-20% more wood should be considered phenomenal. Especially since we've had a very cold winter here in the Great Lakes state.
It's interesting to note that raw combustion efficiency tests that I have done on other gasifiers show a marginally higher number than what I measure typically on the Garn. The other gasifiers show from 3-6% better numbers at full burn. The difference I believe is that the Garn sustains its efficiency throughout the entire wood load due to the storage volume. This would also be true of any other gasifier that has adequate storage (1,500 gallons or more) This is true system efficiency from what I can see.
A formula for an efficient installation would look like this IMHO.
A well insulated unit, installed in a conditioned space, with sufficient storage to burn at least one entire load of fuel along with adequately sized piping and good controls = maximum system efficiency.
Todd, you asked "If space and initial cost were not factors (two big factors), are there any reasons not to go Garn?"
I would have to say no. I would go as far as to say if space and cost are indeed factors, make the Garn work anyway.
It's the only unit out there that I know of with ALL the seams and joints welded on both sides. They are so simple to operate and trouble free that the WAF will be about as good as you can get. If she has to fire it, she can do so without smelling like smoke when she's done or obtaining some extra "curl" in her hair. They are field proven with nearly a 30 year track record.
Some may argue that being an open system, the life of the unit will be somewhat less. I have not seen it. In fact I know of one that is 26 years old and still in daily operation year around. The company just introduced a 25 year warranty if that's any indication. It is proven technology and amazing to think that even though it was designed in the 70's it beats today's emission standards.
Some may argue that an open system requires the use of a heat exchanger. In some applications that's true. It's also true that in some applications it's best to use a heat exchanger even on a pressurized system. It depends on the system. Being an open or semi sealed unit, there is no risk of overpressurization. The chance of a boil over is non existent unless someone fires a full load when the unit is already at 190*+. The storage just soaks it up.
As far as initial cost goes, figure your cost of a typical gasifier including the same amount of storage as a Garn and see what you come up with including the installation. You'll likely find that it's comparable, unless you have a few free 500 gallon storage tanks laying around. Long term costs are likely going to be less due to the simplicity of the unit and its proven design. In addition, consider that a Garn has the horsepower to not only drive most loads but also pick up it's storage temperature at the same time. The WHS 1,500 would have more output than an Econoburn 300, or an EKO 100 (is there such a size?)
All that being said, a Garn is a substantial investment. Martin Lunde the designer of the Garn likes to say that his unit "is for someone who's serious about burning wood".
Just fill it, crank about 2-3 hours on the timer and you have transfered about 800,000 to 1,000,000 btu's into storage. It's as simple as that.
I would have to say no. I would go as far as to say if space and cost are indeed factors, make the Garn work anyway.
It's the only unit out there that I know of with ALL the seams and joints welded on both sides. They are so simple to operate and trouble free that the WAF will be about as good as you can get. If she has to fire it, she can do so without smelling like smoke when she's done or obtaining some extra "curl" in her hair. They are field proven with nearly a 30 year track record.
Some may argue that being an open system, the life of the unit will be somewhat less. I have not seen it. In fact I know of one that is 26 years old and still in daily operation year around. The company just introduced a 25 year warranty if that's any indication. It is proven technology and amazing to think that even though it was designed in the 70's it beats today's emission standards.
Some may argue that an open system requires the use of a heat exchanger. In some applications that's true. It's also true that in some applications it's best to use a heat exchanger even on a pressurized system. It depends on the system. Being an open or semi sealed unit, there is no risk of overpressurization. The chance of a boil over is non existent unless someone fires a full load when the unit is already at 190*+. The storage just soaks it up.
As far as initial cost goes, figure your cost of a typical gasifier including the same amount of storage as a Garn and see what you come up with including the installation. You'll likely find that it's comparable, unless you have a few free 500 gallon storage tanks laying around. Long term costs are likely going to be less due to the simplicity of the unit and its proven design. In addition, consider that a Garn has the horsepower to not only drive most loads but also pick up it's storage temperature at the same time. The WHS 1,500 would have more output than an Econoburn 300, or an EKO 100 (is there such a size?)
All that being said, a Garn is a substantial investment. Martin Lunde the designer of the Garn likes to say that his unit "is for someone who's serious about burning wood".
Just fill it, crank about 2-3 hours on the timer and you have transfered about 800,000 to 1,000,000 btu's into storage. It's as simple as that.
Amen, Amen, Amen... Heaterman, It can't be explained any better than what you just did! If only it will sink in!
I'm hoping Father John will pop in and update us on his installation and early results. With all this talk about Garns, Tom Caldwell is still the only actual Garn user on this board. I'd like to see feedback from a lot more users. I know they're out there--I just wonder why they're not speaking up.
Approximately what does a Garn cost to purchase, install etc. (assume just the boiler and slab, not including heat exchanger, insulated pex etc)?? The last time I priced a OWB it was approaching the $8K - $9k range. I've seen that the EKO is in the $5-7K range (w/o storage) and I think the Tarm and Ekoburn are similar. I imagine with all the bells and whistles the gassifiiers mentioned above will all be similar to the OWB as far as cost goes (or maybe a little more). I have never priced a Garn though, I'll try their website to see if I can figure out anything.
As a side note, if the price of gassifiers is similar to the OWB, I just can't figure out why people like them so much? I guess the ease of install and daily operation, but when you figure all the extra wood, I just don't know. I guess with the new central boiler gassifier we will see. I wonder if the companies like Orlan, Econoburn, greenwood, etc are looking into making hybrid units that incorporate water storage with the gasifier and place in an outdoor insulated unit like the BioMaxx(sp?) and Garn (if a shed is built around it)???
As a side note, if the price of gassifiers is similar to the OWB, I just can't figure out why people like them so much? I guess the ease of install and daily operation, but when you figure all the extra wood, I just don't know. I guess with the new central boiler gassifier we will see. I wonder if the companies like Orlan, Econoburn, greenwood, etc are looking into making hybrid units that incorporate water storage with the gasifier and place in an outdoor insulated unit like the BioMaxx(sp?) and Garn (if a shed is built around it)???
I think people buy OWBs because they work really well and there are dealers all over the place--some of whom tell you what they think you want to hear. People who come on this board looking for advice about boilers seem to gravitate towards gasifiers once they learn about them, mainly because it's a better way to burn wood. But most people have never heard of a gasifier and really have no way of learning about them, so they go with what seems to be the most common rig, which is the ubiquitous OWB.
Slight correction
That's boiler AND storage. 1,500 or 2,000 gallons. No additional piping or circulators are needed for connection between boiler and storage so you're saving the cost on a separate storage system and accoutrements needed to connect.
If you take the 1500 for example and drive it to 200* (which is not a problem) use heat out of it until your water temp reaches 125*, you have transfered about 930,000 BTU's. This is enough to serve most normal sized homes for a full 24 hours even at fairly severe design conditions. That's with no fire in the boiler at all for 24 hours. A 1500 will have a burn rate of about 325,000 per hour and a good sized load will burn for 3 hours. As you can see from that, one good sized load of wood will provide enough heat for a normal heating day. The nice part about it is due to the fact that the combustion blower is time driven instead of water temp driven, it shuts completely off leaving you a nice bed of coals with which to start your fire the next time you fill it.
That being said, a Garn is not right for everyone. They are big and they are a large initial investment. They require field construction of an insulated enclosure. Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES. It's just a matter of individual circumstances and budget.
That's boiler AND storage. 1,500 or 2,000 gallons. No additional piping or circulators are needed for connection between boiler and storage so you're saving the cost on a separate storage system and accoutrements needed to connect.
If you take the 1500 for example and drive it to 200* (which is not a problem) use heat out of it until your water temp reaches 125*, you have transfered about 930,000 BTU's. This is enough to serve most normal sized homes for a full 24 hours even at fairly severe design conditions. That's with no fire in the boiler at all for 24 hours. A 1500 will have a burn rate of about 325,000 per hour and a good sized load will burn for 3 hours. As you can see from that, one good sized load of wood will provide enough heat for a normal heating day. The nice part about it is due to the fact that the combustion blower is time driven instead of water temp driven, it shuts completely off leaving you a nice bed of coals with which to start your fire the next time you fill it.
That being said, a Garn is not right for everyone. They are big and they are a large initial investment. They require field construction of an insulated enclosure. Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES. It's just a matter of individual circumstances and budget.
Just finished framing in a second garn on a local farm by us. He has three 2000,s. One for his house and tool shed, and the other two are heating his parlor and holding pen. Pretty cool
He has the front of one painted red and black for international tractors and the other green and yellow for john deere. He stopped in tto check them and put some more wood in and so I talked with him about them. He commented on how easy they were to operate. Just fill and walk I don't know the sq/ft of the parlor and holding area but it is quite large. He seems very happy and says the one for his house is on average twice a day depending on weather. This is the third one that I have framed in and everyone seems to be happy with performance and ease of use. I wish that I my gasifier was as easy as that. The garn may seem large of costly, but by the time you add ENOUGH storage to a gasifier it will probably end up being about the same. I like the garn more and more everytime I see one.
He has the front of one painted red and black for international tractors and the other green and yellow for john deere. He stopped in tto check them and put some more wood in and so I talked with him about them. He commented on how easy they were to operate. Just fill and walk I don't know the sq/ft of the parlor and holding area but it is quite large. He seems very happy and says the one for his house is on average twice a day depending on weather. This is the third one that I have framed in and everyone seems to be happy with performance and ease of use. I wish that I my gasifier was as easy as that. The garn may seem large of costly, but by the time you add ENOUGH storage to a gasifier it will probably end up being about the same. I like the garn more and more everytime I see one.mother nature hates an imbalance. Keeping 180 F or higher temperatures in a room at 70F Hmmmm. Even with insulation that is a huge delta T always working against you. Add to that a couple holes to the outdoors, chimney and vent and the standby loss gets pretty large.
I am of the opinion the very best place to store your energy is in the un-burned wood. No loss there. Once burned the losses start racking up. Wood to water or boiler efficiency. Then the loss up the flue and to the room.
The efficiency of any conversion product or device is useful energy output divided by energy input. It is always less than 100% efficiency is decreased as energy is lost. Sometimes much less, considering OWF burning at 40% or less efficiency then losing another 10- 20% traveling underground to the load. That start looking sort od silly, even with free wood, if there is such a thing.
Ideally one would burn the wood efficiently as possible and to the exact load. Knowing this is a hard line to follow we tend to look to storage as the holy grail. Same with solar.
Knowing how much storage is enough is the toughest question. I feel at some point it can be over done and energy slips away at a rate not properly accounted for.
If the storage goal is to buy some time without firing, the tanks should size to that load for the determined time. That is a fairly easy calculation. How many hours or days of storage is an answer only the beholder can answer.
Installing buffer or storage to handle over-heat situations should indicate a control, or lack of, issue with the equipment. Or operator error Reminds me of closing the barn door after the cows get out!
I think a realistic storage would be a 24 hour period, at design day without firing. 500- 750 gallons seems do-able. Beyond that I think the return, on capacity based against the dollars invested and the losses inevitable... starts working against you. I could be up in the night.
The key is to lower the load to the smallest possible number and use the lowest possible temperatures to meet that load.
hr
I am of the opinion the very best place to store your energy is in the un-burned wood. No loss there. Once burned the losses start racking up. Wood to water or boiler efficiency. Then the loss up the flue and to the room.
The efficiency of any conversion product or device is useful energy output divided by energy input. It is always less than 100% efficiency is decreased as energy is lost. Sometimes much less, considering OWF burning at 40% or less efficiency then losing another 10- 20% traveling underground to the load. That start looking sort od silly, even with free wood, if there is such a thing.
Ideally one would burn the wood efficiently as possible and to the exact load. Knowing this is a hard line to follow we tend to look to storage as the holy grail. Same with solar.
Knowing how much storage is enough is the toughest question. I feel at some point it can be over done and energy slips away at a rate not properly accounted for.
If the storage goal is to buy some time without firing, the tanks should size to that load for the determined time. That is a fairly easy calculation. How many hours or days of storage is an answer only the beholder can answer.
Installing buffer or storage to handle over-heat situations should indicate a control, or lack of, issue with the equipment. Or operator error
Reminds me of closing the barn door after the cows get out!I think a realistic storage would be a 24 hour period, at design day without firing. 500- 750 gallons seems do-able. Beyond that I think the return, on capacity based against the dollars invested and the losses inevitable... starts working against you. I could be up in the night.
The key is to lower the load to the smallest possible number and use the lowest possible temperatures to meet that load.
hr
hr - you have put some logic and common sense back into this discussion.
IMO some discussions tend to lose track of at least part of what wood heat is all about - use of a sustainable fuel source to provide heating with as high efficiency as is reasonable, at an economical cost, and in today's climate, not add to fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Historically, wood heat has been the heat of choice for reasons of economy and because the users had the woodlot. For some it also has been supplemental heat, for others it was luxurious ambiance, and for others it was and remains an ornament or badge of style to show the "I've made it" culture of the user. I recall, probably still true, that a masonry fireplace was highly desired (and expensive), not for real heat, but because it was a symbol of success and wealth. I suspect many of us have traveled this road, and for us wood heat may have meant several of these things over our short lifetimes - often less that the log we are burning.
I'm pleased that apparent Garn owners are so passionate about their boilers. Garn must make a reasonable to very good product, and its customer loyalty is high. There are other very good gasifier boilers in the market. If logic, common sense, and what wood heating is all about are added to the equation, Garn clearly is the boiler of choice in some applications. In the same vein, a statement "Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES." just doesn't pass the smell test. It won't work for everyone's needs, it's inefficient in many applications, it's uneconomical and wasteful in many applications, it's of a physical size and/or cost that will not work for everyone, and it simply is overkill if the goal is, and I think should be, "The key is to lower the load to the smallest possible number and use the lowest possible temperatures to meet that load."
To repeat, Garn clearly is the boiler of choice in some applications. As is Tarm in others. As is Eko in others, as are other brands in others.
In an odd way storage is touted as the be and end all with a wood boiler. Should we not keep in mind that storage is necessary only because we are unable to efficiently control the combustion process of wood? A gas or oil burner needs no storage because the combustion efficiently and easily can be turned on or off -- in other words, to deliver just the amount of heat needed as and when needed, and to do that efficiently. Consequently, and due to the need for storage, a firebox, refractory, gasification tunnel, etc., a wood boiler system is outrageously expensive compared to a gas boiler. It only becomes economical because in the current market wood has a price advantage -- and for some, because wood is not a fossil fuel.
I also suspect that some of the Garn advocates are dealers, as the hyperbole reads a lot more like a sales pitch than a dispassionate analysis and evaluation of a product by a genuine and disinterested user. I don't find the sales pitches very helpful, and in fact I find that they detract from the value of this forum.
IMO some discussions tend to lose track of at least part of what wood heat is all about - use of a sustainable fuel source to provide heating with as high efficiency as is reasonable, at an economical cost, and in today's climate, not add to fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Historically, wood heat has been the heat of choice for reasons of economy and because the users had the woodlot. For some it also has been supplemental heat, for others it was luxurious ambiance, and for others it was and remains an ornament or badge of style to show the "I've made it" culture of the user. I recall, probably still true, that a masonry fireplace was highly desired (and expensive), not for real heat, but because it was a symbol of success and wealth. I suspect many of us have traveled this road, and for us wood heat may have meant several of these things over our short lifetimes - often less that the log we are burning.
I'm pleased that apparent Garn owners are so passionate about their boilers. Garn must make a reasonable to very good product, and its customer loyalty is high. There are other very good gasifier boilers in the market. If logic, common sense, and what wood heating is all about are added to the equation, Garn clearly is the boiler of choice in some applications. In the same vein, a statement "Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES." just doesn't pass the smell test. It won't work for everyone's needs, it's inefficient in many applications, it's uneconomical and wasteful in many applications, it's of a physical size and/or cost that will not work for everyone, and it simply is overkill if the goal is, and I think should be, "The key is to lower the load to the smallest possible number and use the lowest possible temperatures to meet that load."
To repeat, Garn clearly is the boiler of choice in some applications. As is Tarm in others. As is Eko in others, as are other brands in others.
In an odd way storage is touted as the be and end all with a wood boiler. Should we not keep in mind that storage is necessary only because we are unable to efficiently control the combustion process of wood? A gas or oil burner needs no storage because the combustion efficiently and easily can be turned on or off -- in other words, to deliver just the amount of heat needed as and when needed, and to do that efficiently. Consequently, and due to the need for storage, a firebox, refractory, gasification tunnel, etc., a wood boiler system is outrageously expensive compared to a gas boiler. It only becomes economical because in the current market wood has a price advantage -- and for some, because wood is not a fossil fuel.
I also suspect that some of the Garn advocates are dealers, as the hyperbole reads a lot more like a sales pitch than a dispassionate analysis and evaluation of a product by a genuine and disinterested user. I don't find the sales pitches very helpful, and in fact I find that they detract from the value of this forum.
As for the "smell test" statement, please quote the entire paragraph next time. It reads thusly
"That being said, a Garn is not right for everyone. They are big and they are a large initial investment. They require field construction of an insulated enclosure. Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES. It’s just a matter of individual circumstances and budget."
The point being; yes it would work for anyone but may not be the best choice for a given application and/or budget. I'll try to adjust my syntax to be more easy to understand.
"That being said, a Garn is not right for everyone. They are big and they are a large initial investment. They require field construction of an insulated enclosure. Will a Garn work for everyone? Absolutely YES. It’s just a matter of individual circumstances and budget."
The point being; yes it would work for anyone but may not be the best choice for a given application and/or budget. I'll try to adjust my syntax to be more easy to understand.
The Garn is an interesting phenomenon. Its brand loyalty reminds me of the Mac.
Heaterman is the only Garn dealer that I'm aware of, and he's a straight shooter from what I can see.
The allure of the Garn is perpetuated, I suspect, in part because it's hard to get anyone from the factory or sales staff to return your calls or emails. So there's kind of a forbidden fruit aspect to the whole thing. But I know several Garn owners who don't participate on this site, and they have the same high opinion of the product and dedication to the technology. As I said earlier, I wish we had more actual users represented here so that we could get a broader perspective of how it works under a variety of different conditions.
As heaterman does always point out, it's not for everyone. I would hesitate to buy a boiler that wouldn't fit into my basement if for some reason I had to relocate it. And I'm not sure that onboard storage is the best approach for everyone. I can see some real advantages to being able to bypass it, increase/decrease its size, fit it into a tight spot, etc. Price is usually a consideration. I'm sure some people appreciate being able to buy an EKO or a Tarm today and spend what they saved on fuel the first year to buy some storage for their second season. Not a bad strategy at all. And on the point about Garns being a "fill it and walk away" arrangement, that's how I would pretty much characterize my EKO. I think most of us fuss with our boilers because we want to, not because they don't work just fine on their own.
I really like the Garn design and I think it's a perfect solution in some situations. I only get annoyed when people say things like "The Garn (Mac) is superior technology, and there's no point in even using anything else because it's all crap." Obviously, that's not the case. You want to talk Ford/Chevy--that's different.
Heaterman is the only Garn dealer that I'm aware of, and he's a straight shooter from what I can see.
The allure of the Garn is perpetuated, I suspect, in part because it's hard to get anyone from the factory or sales staff to return your calls or emails. So there's kind of a forbidden fruit aspect to the whole thing. But I know several Garn owners who don't participate on this site, and they have the same high opinion of the product and dedication to the technology. As I said earlier, I wish we had more actual users represented here so that we could get a broader perspective of how it works under a variety of different conditions.
As heaterman does always point out, it's not for everyone. I would hesitate to buy a boiler that wouldn't fit into my basement if for some reason I had to relocate it. And I'm not sure that onboard storage is the best approach for everyone. I can see some real advantages to being able to bypass it, increase/decrease its size, fit it into a tight spot, etc. Price is usually a consideration. I'm sure some people appreciate being able to buy an EKO or a Tarm today and spend what they saved on fuel the first year to buy some storage for their second season. Not a bad strategy at all. And on the point about Garns being a "fill it and walk away" arrangement, that's how I would pretty much characterize my EKO. I think most of us fuss with our boilers because we want to, not because they don't work just fine on their own.
I really like the Garn design and I think it's a perfect solution in some situations. I only get annoyed when people say things like "The Garn (Mac) is superior technology, and there's no point in even using anything else because it's all crap." Obviously, that's not the case. You want to talk Ford/Chevy--that's different.
Eric,as i have pointed out several times in the end both types of boilers heat water very well, kind of like ford/chevy , but what is the mac enigma of the garn is performance from simplicity. but for aformentioned reasons it is not for everyone.
Eric Johnson said:
Eric, I don't know if you were referring to what I said about "fill and walk." I was going on how my first months went. I did not have one day this winter, when I could go in and put wood in and be confident that it was going to burn good and heat my water. I know that some of you guys have it figured out how exactly to burn your gasers and that is awesome. But from my experience with mine and from what I saw working around the garns, I would say that they are much easier to operate. That is why I said that. I am far from an expert when it comes to boilers, so I just wanted to clarify that a little. Hopefully, with more dry wood and some more experience I will get to where I can say that I can fill and walk also, but as of right now, I can't
Interesting thread. We just attended an Energy Fair in Custer, WI. We now heat with an Empyre outdoor wood burner, it's great, and my wife is concerned (always has been) about how much particulates we put into the atmosphere. We stumbled across the GARN exhibit and got very excited. Are there any GARN users out there reading this thread who have placed one in their home? We will be converting our (104' x 36') barn into our home and want feedback from people who have a Garn in their basement, not in an outbuilding.
jebatty said:
Did you ever get your storage done? How did you arrive at the total gallons needed? Just curious.
New LP storage was tank was up and running late March. Works very well. Took a little time to get the pH and alkalinity in line, as our water is a little acidic. Very pleased.
Hankovitch said:
Hankovich - welcome to the Hearth.
I don't think there are very many GARN users on this board. Finding someone that has installed one inside their home will be difficult, as most are installed outside in another structure. Contact your local GARN dealer and ask for a referral to someone who has an in-house unit installed. I think you are in a unique and enviable position to install one inside your barn/home. If you condition all that space, it is going to be one huge home, for sure! I would suggest going with radiant floor heating all the way, as you can use lower water temps, and therefore pull more heat out of storage than if you had convection units (baseboard rads).
We are going with a 2000 installed behind our garage. The fun begins . . .
- Status
Similar threads
