Wood Burner's need a universal testing/rating method..... What should it be???????

  • 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.
Frozen Canuck

Frozen Canuck

Minister of Fire
Dec 14, 2009
858
North central Alberta, Canada
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.
 
Based on my experience, good luck with that.
 
Eric Johnson said:
Based on my experience, good luck with that.
Click to expand...


LOL. Eric, that's my biggest problem, no rules. I just can't see any one person having the time to sift through it all just to buy one unit, maybe two or three in your lifetime (if you get it right). Makes no sense from the consumers perspective.
 
Unfortunately, it's not a big enough market for those kind of standards to be developed in a comprehensive way. There's not enough pressure on those who could make it happen to do so.
 
Eric Johnson said:
Unfortunately, it's not a big enough market for those kind of standards to be developed in a comprehensive way. There's not enough pressure on those who could make it happen to do so.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree, problem is potential customers will continue to seek other alternatives (as they can not trust an unregulated system) kind of like the foreign holiday time shares industry; until that changes & they can trust what they see/read/are told, they will continue to choose fossil first. They probably won't feel forced to change or choose until oil gets to $200/barrel. This is coming sooner than you think BTW.
 
I'm pretty much the last person who would be likely to suggest that the government could actually make things better, but this is an area where I think there's a valuable role that government could and should play.

The free market depends on informed consumers making rational decisions. In order to be informed, it really helps to have clear standards that allow apples-to-apples comparisons.

I'd like to see two standards with clear criteria about how they must be tested:

1) Combustion efficiency: steady-state efficiency for a hot boiler running at full throttle.

2) Unit efficiency: how well the boiler converts wood into delivered hot water over the course of a full firebox load.

In both cases the boiler settings would have to be clearly documented so that the results could be replicated. The resulting efficiency could be advertised IF it was developed by an accredited test facility.
 
Have you guy read the EPA test method? Perhaps you could give this guy a call and see what he could do to help.

From memory it seems the method provided a efficiency of a fully loaded boiler that was up to temperature and the power output. There is a big fat report of test on something like 75 boiler.

Author:
Peter Guldberg, C.C.M.
Tech Environmental, Inc.
1601 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02451
[email protected]

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei16/session5/guldberg.pdf
 
nofossil said:
I'm pretty much the last person who would be likely to suggest that the government could actually make things better, but this is an area where I think there's a valuable role that government could and should play.

The free market depends on informed consumers making rational decisions. In order to be informed, it really helps to have clear standards that allow apples-to-apples comparisons.

I'd like to see two standards with clear criteria about how they must be tested:

1) Combustion efficiency: steady-state efficiency for a hot boiler running at full throttle.

2) Unit efficiency: how well the boiler converts wood into delivered hot water over the course of a full firebox load.

In both cases the boiler settings would have to be clearly documented so that the results could be replicated. The resulting efficiency could be advertised IF it was developed by an accredited test facility.
Click to expand...

I'd go with what your gut tells you about the gov't making things better.

I think Eric is right, the wood boiler market in this country is small in comparison to our European counterparts', and until the politicians see dollar signs from an expanding market, none of the politicians will pay attention to the fact that there aren't reliable test protocols in place. As it is now, there is plenty of testing going on by the different manufacturers to acquire EPA status, efficiency numbers, etc... but the testing facilities all seem to interperet the test methods differently... often very differently. Don't forget that as the market grows, so too will the cost of bribing the politicians to skew the test methods in favor of the companies with the most sacks of cash. It's difficult, if not impossible, to remove corruption from any type of standardized test method, be it gov't run or a free market solution.

With that out of the way.... I am in total agreement with nofossil on the combustion efficiency/unit efficiency issue. The average consumer doesn't even know that there's a difference... It would be nice if unit efficiency (basically input/output efficiency) was the standard for rating this type of equipment. While combustion efficiency is a really high number, and sure is fun to look at in a brochure, unit efficiency is much more meaningful. A downdraft with 90%+ advertised combustion efficiency sounds great... but what if it's only getting 30% or 40% (thermal efficiency) of that 90% into the water with 1200* stack temps? That wouldn't be too good, but the average consumer would have no idea.

Cheers
 
What we need is a wood boiler equivalent of the University of Nebraska Tractor Tests that have been going on for 91 years and served as a credible report on actual horsepower, etc. (and whether it meets manufacturer's claims) for the nation and in fact the world.
No regulatory role at all, no taxes or fees, but a credible independent benchmark that is widely known/ respected in a way that causes any BS-ers to lose credibility (which, in the long run, deters the BS-ing).
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/History.htm

It'd be great not merely to test thermal efficiency, but have something like car magazines' "long term tests" where they keep a vehicle for several tens of thousands of miles to see how it actually does on more than a quick test drive or track run.

I'd love to run with something like that if I could get funding- but in these times, it seems like funding would be tough.
 
As the resident hard-core Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist, I will agree that defining standard weights and measures is one of the extremely few legitimate government functions... (though it could potentially be done by a private entity that had enough clout to protect it's system from being misused) Performance standards can somewhat fit under that description as well, at least in terms of defining what they should be...

Bad as the EPA fuel economy numbers are in terms of describing "real world" performance, they have brought a certain degree of "level playing field" to the question of automotive mileage in that they are determined in a consistent manner... Nobody expects to actually get the EPA mileage, but if car A does significantly better than car B per the EPA, people rationally expect to see a similar level of difference in real life...

Stove / boiler testing should be similar, but I don't think the industry is really big enough to demand that the gov't set a standard, nor do I think most industry players would want to see a gov't standard with it's likely added costs of compliance... I suspect that if the industry really felt it was in it's interest to actually HAVE such a standard, it could develop it's own internal standard, just the same way that the computer industry develops its own software interoperation standards - but I suspect that there really is a general preference for the current status quo...

My suspicion is that you are not going to find a significant difference in the performance of the different gassers for instance - and a test would show that, and essentially keep any of the companies from being able to make the claim "higher efficiency than the other guys" - with the current jumbled situation each can make that claim by coming up with a "test" that shows itself of to be the "best"

Another issue is that it would verge on impossible to come up with a "fair" test that treated all kinds of burners the same way... How do I measure the heat transfer output of a Garn? Will the same methodology work on an EKO? The Greenwood burners tell us that they get their best performance w/ big 12"+ rounds. Many of the other gassers tell us to use small diameter splits - who decides? Different units have different sizes of fireboxes, and may not perform the same way if not filled completely - how do you decide how much to put in them?

How do you compare the heat output of the convection hot air blower on an insert to the radiant heat output of a Hearthstone - or even compare the radiant heat output of a steel plate Englander to a soapstone Fireview - the two stoves have different heat output curves, even with the same load of wood...

If just limit the equation to comparing boilers, there might be a slightly simpler task, though by no means an easy one... I would also exclude the Garn because I can't see any way to measure it's heat output separately from it's storage functions... In order to be "fair" I would say that the manufacturer should be able to specify the load size and wood dimensions - using the recommended figures published in the users manual, for the size of the firewood, which should be of specified species and moisture content, and the amount placed in the firebox, filling it to the appropriate level. The weight of wood obviously would be logged... Manual boiler adjustments not allowed during the burn, other than as specified in startup procedures published in manual... (which should be followed) Any tuning adjustments must the ones specified in the manual, and be such that the maximum flow rate through the boiler plumbing not exceed 4fpm, when the boiler is connected using the piping sizes recommended in the manual, pumping into a 10' head resistance.

I would start with an empty, clean boiler, but pre-heat it to 140°F, as non-condensing temperature, and feed the boiler with a steady 140°F return water supply. On the output side, I would put a thermally controlled pump set to maintain a 20°F differential on the output temp. This would allow simple measurement of the output BTU's by monitoring the volume of water output... Test starts when the boiler is lit, and ends when the boiler can no longer sustain a 20°F differential at the output - record burn time, BTU output and wood weight - key "efficiency" number would be BTU/lb wood. Output rating is the average BTU output over the burn time.

Probably a few more refinements needed, but I think the key idea is that the test procedure should mirror the manufacturers user / installation manual as much as possible, as this gives the manufacturers an incentive to give high quality instructions. Bottom line output should be a very plain number like "BTU's / lb. of fuel" under a standard set of conditions, which bear at least a vague resemblance to a real world burning scenario - I really don't care about "combustion efficiency" or "Heat exchanger efficiency" or all those other numbers. Overall system efficiency is also not real useful as there is to much variability in systems - but the notion that I will get a given amount of hot water out of the boiler per pound of wood I shovel in, if the boiler is set up per instructions, is a really easy thing to compare...

Gooserider
 
I think that is how the EPA test was setup, holding the heat transfer temps constant to measure heat output, and also gas temps to measure efficiency; while measuring the emissions.


By the by: performance is directly proportional to the peak combustion temperature. The chemical reactions of gases have a defined peak temperature that can be achieved, that is our goal for our boiler's combustion temperature. The boiler with the highest combustion temperature will be the one with the highest performance.


When a boiler is tested the folks with the stake in the data (the boiler company owners) spend their time adjusting the boiler settings to optimize the combustion temperature. A good example which is easier to observe in when a gas torch is lit. The next step after lighting it is to adjusted the gas combustion temperature (to support the desired use). It is easy to see a wide range of colors which is a good indicator of temperature.


The same thing is attempted with a boiler. Looking in owner's manuals there are section about setting draft, O2 levels, flue gas temperature, all part of the combustion temperature adjustment.


So in the short term perhaps a easy of use metric connected to how easy it is to achieve and maintain the advertised performance.
 
Frozen Canuck said:
Eric Johnson said:
Unfortunately, it's not a big enough market for those kind of standards to be developed in a comprehensive way. There's not enough pressure on those who could make it happen to do so.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree, problem is potential customers will continue to seek other alternatives (as they can not trust an unregulated system) kind of like the foreign holiday time shares industry; until that changes & they can trust what they see/read/are told, they will continue to choose fossil first. They probably won't feel forced to change or choose until oil gets to $200/barrel. This is coming sooner than you think BTW.
Click to expand...

Wowsers....what a statement. "can't trust an unregulated system"....that's some strong kool aid !!!
 
All, the US EPA is now updating the New Source Performance Standard for wood burning appliances. It is reported that all types of appliances are under review from decorative fireplaces, to masonry heaters, to wood and pellet stoves, to boilers and furnaces. At this time it appears that different appliance categories will be tested by different tests. However, the EPA has not defined the test methods or threshold numbers that will determine whether or not an appliance is legal. We expect to see a first draft of recommendations by the end of September 2010. Wood and wood pellet burning boilers, whether indoor or outdoor units will probably be tested using a method similar to the method described by the ASTM method 2618-09. There is currently a thermal storage appendix to this method largely developed by the folks at Garn as we understand things. At this time there are some from industry who are working on yet another thermal storage appendix to help address specifics related to testing when the thermal storage is not a part of the burning appliance, but is instead remote as much thermal storage is. The US EPA will make a final determination about which tests it will use. The EPA has historically created tests that mimic worst case scenerios which has for the most part meant running appliances at very low burn rates and weighting these rates of firing more heavily than the high burn rate tests. With thermal storage this situation changes and finding a test method that compares apples to apples isn't a simple matter when you get down to details. The bottom line is that within about 2 years manufacturers will have to test both for emissions and efficiency. This will give the consumer a more accurate picture of what is available. I have been told that the EPA will be significantly tightening the realm of what is allowable in terms of emissions and efficiency. I have also been told that the shamefully low efficiencies of some products and their rampant air pollution will no longer be tolerated.
In the mean time, it remains difficult to compare products. Some are tested to European methods, some have met various phases of EPA voluntary testing and some have not been tested at all. When comparing products, a consumer must ask how efficiency numbers are derived. Our company has reported both European data, which tests with the lower heating value of wood (compensates for energy used to convert water to steam) and we have more recently reported interpolated European data in an attempt to show what the US numbers might be. Even our interpolated numbers are not easy to compare to true American tests because the test methods themselves are different. What the consumer should know is that the most efficient pellet boilers are operating in the 83%-85% range and the most efficient firewood boilers are in the 81%-82% range. Over-all efficiency numbers higher than that are either based on European test data or are questionable.
 
There is an applicable testing method for gassifier type boilers with storage . ASTM E 2618 - 09

Designation: E 2618 – 09
Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating
Efficiency of Outdoor Solid Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2618; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

The test method and what it covers is copywrited so I cant post the pdf but it can be purchased/downloaded here if interested.

http://www.techstreet.com/standards/ASTM/E2618_09?product_id=1617167

I have copied just the scope of the test to show how it applies.

1. Scope
1.1 This test method applies to wood-fired or automatically
fed biomass burning hydronic heating appliances, which the
manufacturer specifies for outdoor installation or in structures
not normally occupied by humans. These appliances transfer
heat to the indoor environment through circulation of a liquid
heat exchange media such as water or a water-antifreeze
mixture.
1.2 The test method simulates hand loading of seasoned
cordwood or fueling with a specified biomass fuel and measures
particulate emissions and delivered heating efficiency at
specified heat output rates based on the appliance’s rated
heating capacity.
1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by the dilution
tunnel method as specified in Test Method E 2515. Delivered
efficiency is measured by determining the heat output through
measurement of the flow rate and temperature change of water
circulated through a heat exchanger external to the appliance
and determining the input from the mass of dry fuel and its
higher heating value. Delivered efficiency does not attempt to
account for pipeline loss.
1.4 Products covered by this test method include both
pressurized and non-pressurized heating appliances intended to
be fired with wood or automatically fed biomass fuels. These
products are hydronic heating appliances which the manufacturer
specifies for outdoor installation or in structures not
normally occupied by humans. They are often connected to an
indoor heat exchanger by insulated pipes buried in the ground
and normally include a pump to circulate heated liquid. They
are used to heat structures such as homes, barns, and greenhouses
and can heat domestic hot water, spas, or swimming
pools.

how it applies to units with thermal storage tanks.


X1.1 Scope
X1.1.1 Appendix X1 describes a modified test method that
is to be utilized for wood-fired hydronic heating appliances,
both non-pressurized and pressurized, that incorporate, either
integrally or remotely, mass thermal storage. A mass storage
unit transfers heat to the indoor environment through the
circulation of a liquid heat exchange media such as water or
water/antifreeze mixtures. Such appliances are used to heat
structures such as homes, barns, small commercial facilities,
greenhouses, etc., and can heat domestic hot water, spas, or
swimming pools.
X1.1.2 Appliances covered by Appendix X1 must incorporate
sufficient thermal storage capacity to safely accept the
entire heat output of a full fuel load without heat draw-off,
without over heating, and without activating any safety limit
controls provided with the appliance. Sufficient thermal storage
capacity must be provided by the manufacturer to allow a 4-h
carry over between firings when providing the maximum rated
heat output.
X1.1.3 This test method simulates hand loading of seasoned
firewood and measures particulate emissions and delivered
efficiency. The rate at which energy is delivered to a building
is independent of the combustion process and burn rate;
however, some heat losses from the system to the outdoor
environment occur over time and are termed stand-by loss for
the purposes of this test procedure. When heat is required, it is
withdrawn from thermal storage whether or not combustion is
occurring. The only function of the combustion process is to
periodically recharge the thermal storage with energy through
a batch burn process. Optimization of this batch burn process
minimizes particulate emissions and increases combustion
efficiency.
X1.1.4 Particulate emissions are measured by the dilution
tunnel method as specified in Test Method E 2515. Delivered
efficiency is measured by determining the temperature rise of
the thermal storage and determining the input from the mass of
dry wood fuel consumed based upon its higher heating value
and its moisture content.
X1.1.5 This procedure includes a stand-by loss test which
determines the average rate heat is expected to be lost from the
system to the environment when in operation. This data, along
with the heat storage measurements, are used to calculate
equivalent efficiency and emissions performance for heat
output categories as defined in the main standard based on the
manufacturer’s stated maximum heat output capacity. This
capacity must not exceed a level that the test data indicates can
be sustained for a minimum period of 4 h from one full fuel
charge. An equivalent 8-h heat output capacity is also calculated.


the full document goes into all the details of the complete test methods.



This test would offer an acceptable rating method or benchmark

So far the EPA has not accepted this test. They , the EPA is currently being "courted" to make this an accepted test standard.

The reason I have interest in this is because we are responsible for the testing requirements etc. that may be needed for boilers we import.

This test could be run on boilers today by INTERTEC or OMNI labs etc, but until the test becomes recognized by EPA. the investment into this probably will not happen.
 
stee6043 said:
Frozen Canuck said:
Eric Johnson said:
Unfortunately, it's not a big enough market for those kind of standards to be developed in a comprehensive way. There's not enough pressure on those who could make it happen to do so.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree, problem is potential customers will continue to seek other alternatives (as they can not trust an unregulated system) kind of like the foreign holiday time shares industry; until that changes & they can trust what they see/read/are told, they will continue to choose fossil first. They probably won't feel forced to change or choose until oil gets to $200/barrel. This is coming sooner than you think BTW.
Click to expand...

Wowsers....what a statement. "can't trust an unregulated system"....that's some strong kool aid !!!
Click to expand...


Yes, kind of like the trust we all placed in the financial sector of North America. Trust us they said, we know how to regulate ourselves, we will of course act in the best interest of all concerned, remove all those troublesome gov't regulations, that we really don't like. Maybe the result of that nonsense was good for you (possibly) I just don't see that all that many others would say it was good for them. (Maybe I am wrong). Doubt it though.
 
I appreciate the need to respect Copyright, (Though I don't think standards should be allowed to be Copyrighted) but can you give a "capsule" summary of what the test procedure looks like?

1. What is the fuel - especially what is it's "form factor"? (Some have objected to the notion of using cut lumber shapes, and I agree - I think the test would be more "real world" if it used some kind of simulated cordwood, either dowels, or possibly triangular cut lumber...)

2. What is the general test setup and procedure - are they starting from a cold boiler or pre-heating? How much "user intervention" is allowed during a test run? How does the test run in general?

Gooserider
 
Gooserider said:
As the resident hard-core Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist, I will agree that defining standard weights and measures is one of the extremely few legitimate government functions... (though it could potentially be done by a private entity that had enough clout to protect it's system from being misused) Performance standards can somewhat fit under that description as well, at least in terms of defining what they should be...

Bad as the EPA fuel economy numbers are in terms of describing "real world" performance, they have brought a certain degree of "level playing field" to the question of automotive mileage in that they are determined in a consistent manner... Nobody expects to actually get the EPA mileage, but if car A does significantly better than car B per the EPA, people rationally expect to see a similar level of difference in real life...

Stove / boiler testing should be similar, but I don't think the industry is really big enough to demand that the gov't set a standard, nor do I think most industry players would want to see a gov't standard with it's likely added costs of compliance... I suspect that if the industry really felt it was in it's interest to actually HAVE such a standard, it could develop it's own internal standard, just the same way that the computer industry develops its own software interoperation standards - but I suspect that there really is a general preference for the current status quo...

My suspicion is that you are not going to find a significant difference in the performance of the different gassers for instance - and a test would show that, and essentially keep any of the companies from being able to make the claim "higher efficiency than the other guys" - with the current jumbled situation each can make that claim by coming up with a "test" that shows itself of to be the "best"

Another issue is that it would verge on impossible to come up with a "fair" test that treated all kinds of burners the same way... How do I measure the heat transfer output of a Garn? Will the same methodology work on an EKO? The Greenwood burners tell us that they get their best performance w/ big 12"+ rounds. Many of the other gassers tell us to use small diameter splits - who decides? Different units have different sizes of fireboxes, and may not perform the same way if not filled completely - how do you decide how much to put in them?

How do you compare the heat output of the convection hot air blower on an insert to the radiant heat output of a Hearthstone - or even compare the radiant heat output of a steel plate Englander to a soapstone Fireview - the two stoves have different heat output curves, even with the same load of wood...

If just limit the equation to comparing boilers, there might be a slightly simpler task, though by no means an easy one... I would also exclude the Garn because I can't see any way to measure it's heat output separately from it's storage functions... In order to be "fair" I would say that the manufacturer should be able to specify the load size and wood dimensions - using the recommended figures published in the users manual, for the size of the firewood, which should be of specified species and moisture content, and the amount placed in the firebox, filling it to the appropriate level. The weight of wood obviously would be logged... Manual boiler adjustments not allowed during the burn, other than as specified in startup procedures published in manual... (which should be followed) Any tuning adjustments must the ones specified in the manual, and be such that the maximum flow rate through the boiler plumbing not exceed 4fpm, when the boiler is connected using the piping sizes recommended in the manual, pumping into a 10' head resistance.

I would start with an empty, clean boiler, but pre-heat it to 140°F, as non-condensing temperature, and feed the boiler with a steady 140°F return water supply. On the output side, I would put a thermally controlled pump set to maintain a 20°F differential on the output temp. This would allow simple measurement of the output BTU's by monitoring the volume of water output... Test starts when the boiler is lit, and ends when the boiler can no longer sustain a 20°F differential at the output - record burn time, BTU output and wood weight - key "efficiency" number would be BTU/lb wood. Output rating is the average BTU output over the burn time.

[del][/del][del][/del]Probably a few more refinements needed, but I think the key idea is that the test procedure should mirror the manufacturers user / installation manual as much as possible, as this gives the manufacturers an incentive to give high quality instructions. Bottom line output should be a very plain number like "BTU's / lb. of fuel" under a standard set of conditions, which bear at least a vague resemblance to a real world burning scenario - I really don't care about "combustion efficiency" or "Heat exchanger efficiency" or all those other numbers. Overall system efficiency is also not real useful as there is to much variability in systems - but the notion that I will get a given amount of hot water out of the boiler per pound of wood I shovel in, if the boiler is set up per instructions, is a really easy thing to compare...

Gooserider
Click to expand...


Goose I think you have hit the nail on the head. (Or at least come close enough to scare it). A fair test that the manufacturers have input into, that results in numbers that the consumer can believe in. I really like the idea of incentive for better manuals from the manufacturers. Very well put.
 
If you read the partnership agreement with the EPA on the burnwise website you will see that it references ASTM E2618 Appendix A for the test method for the thermal storage boilers.
 
Mike Toney of the EPA sent me this response:

EPA has not yet tested an indoor hydronic heater or received a emission test report to date. We anticipate reports coming in the future.



I did send a thank you reply with a few questions about when there might be test run.
 
Here is Mike Toney's of the EPA reply:

Hi Steve,

We do not have plans to run tests on indoor hydronic heaters at EPA. We encourage manufacturers to submit emission tests performed at an

EPA accredited wood heater laboratory. Most manufacturers perform in house testing first then have an EPA accredited laboratory perform the

official test and submit to EPA for review.
 
pybyr said:
What we need is a wood boiler equivalent of the University of Nebraska Tractor Tests that have been going on for 91 years and served as a credible report on actual horsepower, etc. (and whether it meets manufacturer's claims) for the nation and in fact the world.
No regulatory role at all, no taxes or fees, but a credible independent benchmark that is widely known/ respected in a way that causes any BS-ers to lose credibility (which, in the long run, deters the BS-ing).
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/History.htm

It'd be great not merely to test thermal efficiency, but have something like car magazines' "long term tests" where they keep a vehicle for several tens of thousands of miles to see how it actually does on more than a quick test drive or track run.

I'd love to run with something like that if I could get funding- but in these times, it seems like funding would be tough.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
Igor Kuznetsov, the Russian stove designer ( stove.ru ) says that in his opinion, the fair, practical, real-life-meaningful way to test a stove or boiler is to measure heat output with two loadings over 24 hours. One might add "...usning 'normal' wood." This is the way most people actually burn wood.

To me, this makes much more sense than complicated laboratory bench testing that allegedly yield efficiency numbers to 2 decimal places.
 
Smee said:
Igor Kuznetsov, the Russian stove designer ( stove.ru ) says that in his opinion, the fair, practical, real-life-meaningful way to test a stove or boiler is to measure heat output with two loadings over 24 hours. One might add "...usning 'normal' wood." This is the way most people actually burn wood.

To me, this makes much more sense than complicated laboratory bench testing that allegedly yield efficiency numbers to 2 decimal places.
Click to expand...

In theory I'd agree, but this leaves to much open to question - what constitutes a "loading" and define "normal wood"... Do you count the heat radiated from the device if it's a boiler or furnace, or just what's delivered to the water / duct outlets? How does one define the conditions of operation, etc....

I think there needs to be some sort of "standard procedure" that makes the comparison meaningful. Ideally the comparison should be something that resembles some sort of "real world" operating conditions, and be designed so that "building to the test" won't be a big problem...

Gooserider
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Max W
Minisplits and wood
Replies
4
Views
914
The Inglenook
EbS-P
EbS-P
cr0
Should we get chimney inspected/cleaned?
Replies
7
Views
945
Blaze King
Rickb
R
D
Chimney Fires White Paper - Read This!
Replies
14
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
R
Should I avoid a cat stove?
Replies
83
Views
7K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
J
Xtrordinair 44 Elite experience
Replies
0
Views
2K
Travis Industries: Lopi, Avalon, FPX
jnewman67
J
Top Bottom
Back