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

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
btuser said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Webmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gio said:
btuser said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Just curious Craig.....if you still have a pellet stove in your home, what brand is it?
 
Webmaster said:
Gio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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!
 
Gio said:
Webmaster said:
Gio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
StrangeRanger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
StrangeRanger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
macman said:
Gio said:
....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 ........
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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 ;)
 
NH Pellet Head said:
macman said:
Gio said:
....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 ........
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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 ;)
Click to expand...
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?
 
BDPVT said:
NH Pellet Head said:
macman said:
Gio said:
....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 ........
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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 ;)
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?
 
NH Pellet Head said:
BDPVT said:
NH Pellet Head said:
macman said:
Gio said:
....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 ........
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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 ;)
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?
Click to expand...
Oh, that was a joke? Sorry i thought it was just a poor analogy!
 
BDPVT said:
NH Pellet Head said:
BDPVT said:
NH Pellet Head said:
macman said:
Gio" date="1258000501 said:
....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 ........
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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 ;)
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Captain Obvious (aka BDPVT)! Jokes ARE allowed in the threads, yes?
Click to expand...
Oh, that was a joke? Sorry i thought it was just a poor analogy!
Click to expand...

We'll try to keep a bit more high-brow for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

relxn88
  • Locked
Pellet Stove efficiency rating article
Replies
4
Views
2K
The Pellet Mill - Pellet and Multifuel Stoves
Mt Bob
Mt Bob
webfish
  • Locked
General SHOULD OPEN FIREPLACES BE ILLEGAL
Replies
0
Views
10K
Articles
webfish
webfish
Elfmaze
  • Locked
Paralysis by analysis - Looking for first stove
Replies
51
Views
7K
The Pellet Mill - Pellet and Multifuel Stoves
Mr. Spock
Mr. Spock
webfish
  • Locked
Wood Stoves and Fireplaces HEARTH DESIGN FOR WOOD, PELLET AND COAL STOVES
Replies
0
Views
65K
Articles
webfish
webfish
webfish
  • Locked
General GLOSSARY OF COMMON HEARTH AND HEATING TERMS
Replies
0
Views
7K
Articles
webfish
webfish
Top Bottom
Back