This is going to be long winded so please bear with me.
I have been doing a lot of reading here & one topic of concern that we can all agree on is the lack of a universal test method for wood burners of all types.
My question to everyone is simple, what universal testing/rating method should be used when rating a wood burning appliance?
I think we all should know when buying a wood burner that (just picking numbers here) a wood stove is 10% efficient, an owb is 20% efficient, a gaser is 50% efficient & a gaser with XXXX gallons of storage per btu rating (or other rating) is 75% efficient, as adequate storage should eliminate the burn then smoulder issues of an owb & gaser without storage. You see I am in the same position as many on this site (trying to make a rational decision) given all the wild claims out there, that do nothing but muddy the water & frustrate potential buyers.
To be honest this abundance of misleading information (intentionally or otherwise) along with a serious lack of credible information/tests/results etc; has me thinking that the fossil burners are far easier to figure out/get right. I should have one for backup heat anyway. Maybe that's a major reason why the wood burning industry is so small (people feel they are in a coin toss situation) & decide not to buy. Really if any of us feels this way (coin toss) when we are shopping for a new car, well we just walk away.
Just wondering what your thoughts are about a universal testing/rating method. Maybe overall (total) system efficiency should be in there too, as this would allow companies to compete on the basis of efficiency & of course reap the rewards in the marketplace for being very good at overall efficiency.
I am also interested in what the pro's in this area have to say, as they have the opportunity to see many more systems, both in design & long term operation, than we the end user's do.
We already have agreed upon test methods for fossil burners, so getting a universal testing/rating method for wood burners should not be that difficult.
After all; once you agree upon a species, a given volume of that species, a given weight for that volume, in that species & a given average moisture content, for that given species, volume & weight. Your done as far as fuel source is concerned. This would be your baseline fuel & all units being tested would burn the same fuel. The rest; converting fuel into btu's for example, is what will determine how efficient any given wood burner is. I think that I am on the right track here?
The Europeans seem to be way ahead of us in this area, time we caught up IMO.
Time for your thoughts on what a universal testing/rating method should be. Thanks for bearing with me.
P.S. I still intend to buy a gaser it would just be so much easier/simpler/safer & much more fair to both buyer & seller if there were some rules etc in place as opposed to all the wild claims I have come across. You see the honest seller's must contend with all the bad info too, in their quest to sell good quality product. I don't envy them a bit in this regard, as good product usually makes honest claims & has to contend with bad product making wild claims without fear of consequence.
I have been doing a lot of reading here & one topic of concern that we can all agree on is the lack of a universal test method for wood burners of all types.
My question to everyone is simple, what universal testing/rating method should be used when rating a wood burning appliance?
I think we all should know when buying a wood burner that (just picking numbers here) a wood stove is 10% efficient, an owb is 20% efficient, a gaser is 50% efficient & a gaser with XXXX gallons of storage per btu rating (or other rating) is 75% efficient, as adequate storage should eliminate the burn then smoulder issues of an owb & gaser without storage. You see I am in the same position as many on this site (trying to make a rational decision) given all the wild claims out there, that do nothing but muddy the water & frustrate potential buyers.
To be honest this abundance of misleading information (intentionally or otherwise) along with a serious lack of credible information/tests/results etc; has me thinking that the fossil burners are far easier to figure out/get right. I should have one for backup heat anyway. Maybe that's a major reason why the wood burning industry is so small (people feel they are in a coin toss situation) & decide not to buy. Really if any of us feels this way (coin toss) when we are shopping for a new car, well we just walk away.
Just wondering what your thoughts are about a universal testing/rating method. Maybe overall (total) system efficiency should be in there too, as this would allow companies to compete on the basis of efficiency & of course reap the rewards in the marketplace for being very good at overall efficiency.
I am also interested in what the pro's in this area have to say, as they have the opportunity to see many more systems, both in design & long term operation, than we the end user's do.
We already have agreed upon test methods for fossil burners, so getting a universal testing/rating method for wood burners should not be that difficult.
After all; once you agree upon a species, a given volume of that species, a given weight for that volume, in that species & a given average moisture content, for that given species, volume & weight. Your done as far as fuel source is concerned. This would be your baseline fuel & all units being tested would burn the same fuel. The rest; converting fuel into btu's for example, is what will determine how efficient any given wood burner is. I think that I am on the right track here?
The Europeans seem to be way ahead of us in this area, time we caught up IMO.
Time for your thoughts on what a universal testing/rating method should be. Thanks for bearing with me.
P.S. I still intend to buy a gaser it would just be so much easier/simpler/safer & much more fair to both buyer & seller if there were some rules etc in place as opposed to all the wild claims I have come across. You see the honest seller's must contend with all the bad info too, in their quest to sell good quality product. I don't envy them a bit in this regard, as good product usually makes honest claims & has to contend with bad product making wild claims without fear of consequence.