Lost heat - what a waste!

BDPVT said:

Franks said:

slls said:

Maybe someone will come out with a 90-95 % condensing pellet stove. Stainless steel second chamber with water drain line, PVC vent pipe. Probably cost only a few grand more.
I think I will stick with my Quad, lots of heat on medium, blower moves lots of air.

Click to expand...

94.9% on the Europa. Already done. Retails for $4500 currently. Multi fuel, battery backup and a no drama ash managment system. Heats 1500 square feet here in CNY on 2 lbs per hour most days of the year.

Click to expand...

The Europa is a very good stove no doubt, but they are rated at 86% overal efficiency according to their website. Very similar to most certified pellet stoves. I think 94.9% refers to combustion efficency.

Click to expand...

I wonder if a white paper is available on this stove? Or if a white paper itself is valid?
Anyone?

Maybe we will hear back from Franks when he gets back to work this am.
I'm sure the Europa is a nice stove but I feel sorry for anyone who has purchased one from this guy based on him quoting these eff ratings.

It was tested at 94.9 HEAT EXCHANGER EFFICIENCY by Omni Labs using the lower heat value. With a tiny bit of research , Mascoma, you would have found this website. www.paromax.ca which has a little button you can click that says "Certificate EPA" But sorry to say for my customers who have bought these stoves despite my lying to them, they were all duped. Paromax, My boss and myself all lied in order to make those sales and that document is a forgery. I have been busted!

For the more serious of you inquring who have been on these forums a while, We're still waiting for Craig to make arrangements with a lab for the biomass shootout. Hope it will be soon.

Franks said:

It was tested at 94.9 HEAT EXCHANGER EFFICIENCY by Omni Labs using the lower heat value. With a tiny bit of research , Mascoma, you would have found this website. www.paromax.ca which has a little button you can click that says "Certificate EPA" But sorry to say for my customers who have bought these stoves despite my lying to them, they were all duped. Paromax, My boss and myself all lied in order to make those sales and that document is a forgery. I have been busted!

For the more serious of you inquring who have been on these forums a while, We're still waiting for Craig to make arrangements with a lab for the biomass shootout. Hope it will be soon.

Click to expand...

Franks,
The 94.9%LHV is a measure of combustion efficency. To clarify, the lower heating value (also known as net calorific value, net CV, or LHV) of a fuel is defined as the amount of heat released by combusting a specified quantity (initially at 25 °C or another reference state) and returning the temperature of the combustion products to 150 °C. While 94.9% is an impressive number, this is not heat transfer efficiency.The net efficency for the Europa as stated on their website is 86%. If you are declaring 94.9% convection efficiency you are misleading your customers. If I am wrong about this please point us to the research that supports your claim.

Ok, I am outmatched with the techie talk here. I'm just the sales rep. I'll talk to Claude and have him explain it better to me in an email, or get him to chime in here. He is the guy who invented the stove. The 86% efficiency is the older model. I'll get the facts and figures to make sure EVERYONE including myself is 100% accurate. Gimme a little bit.

I know that part of the testing had to do with the heat exchanger air temp of 280 degrees and the exhaust temp of 290, or something along those lines. Also the fact that is uses a 10-1 air ratio, but that may have more to do with combustion, not heat exchange. I just left Claude a voicemail. I'll keep track of this thread. There is also another thread on this with some great minds involved discussing this technology. Part of the number may also be based on fuel used. According to Claudes testing which he has showed me the documentation of...ahh, I think I have all that jumble of numbers posted in another thread. I'll try to find that link and post it here.

What I see is massive heat with a small amount of fuel. Realisticly at 2lbs per hour of fuel, this stove heats more than the Magnum Countryside beside it on 3 Lbs per hour (the number 3 setting) and at least as much as the Countryside on the #4 setting 4lbs per hour. Now this is just keeping track of our thermostat which is about 20' from both stoves and the outside temps. There are other factors involved (traffic in and out the front door, etc)

I've known Claude for a while now. He was excited to tell me they acheived a 94.9% heat exchanger efficiency and I took this at his word and based on the Omni Test.

Also, it that test was dont on combustion efficiency, wouldnt the LHV be closer to 98 or 99%?

From the Paromax site:

* 85% Efficiency Heat Transfer. The convection efficiencies can be calculated by dividing the temperatures between the convection outlets (pipe) and the temperatures of the exhaust chimney.

Click to expand...

That would make this stove 2x more efficient than my Harman XXV which claims overall 85% efficiency.

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/45118/

There's more info there. Again, I'll let the true mad scientist answer the techie questions. I just hope he isnt taking a long weekend.

Ugh.. Ya’all are beating two seprate horses I think.

Any heat source has two efficincies: (excluding heat pumps)

#1) Combustion efficiency: This is how efficiently the appliance converts the stored chemical energy of the fuel to heat. We can talk about gasification and traditional fire and coal and oil on and on. NOTE: in our case we send some flammable gasses up the stack because we to not burn hot enough to chemically oxidize the gas. (this is where REAL gasification can make inroads into efficiency. They burn a bigger percentage of the pellet) Think of a smoldering fire. It is burning but not hot enough for traditional fire and the smoke you see is a burnable gas that is wasted. You can’t measure mass of before and after. All you can do is measure calories of potential vs. calories actual released.

#2 Heat exchanger efficiency: Let me start here in saying Physics can NOT be circumnavigated. Heat only flows in one direction HOT to COLD. In order to make heat flow it MUST be hotter in the combustion chamber side of the exchanger than the exchanger wall and the exchanger wall MUST be hotter than the ambient air in the home you are trying to heat. This efficiency measures how well heat can be moved from the combustion chamber to the room/home. Without boring you with the math, the important things to think in an exchanger is Air flow through both the combustion chamber and through the exhaust chamber into the home. These MUST be turbulent that is fast enough to make tiny vorticies around inside the exchanger.
The next item is surface area. The more surface the more energy will be transmitted. Look as your radiator on your car. All those fins are where the work is really happening.
The material of this exchanger. Copper and aluminum are 7-10 times better than steel, gold is about 30 times better and diamond is nearly 100 times.
The next item is cleanliness Fly ash acts like an insulator and can quickly half the amount of energy transmitted.


More to come later..

There have been multiple claims here about efficiency and how it is calculated. I personally take them ALL with a grain of salt.

Franks your method of saying that 240* air temp vs 250* exhaust temp is one way of calculation and arriving at an efficiency number. It would NOT be my choice to calculate that way and here is why. Heat transfer is proportional to the delta T change in temperature from the hot to cold side of the exchanger. This means that if I have 100 Degrees difference I will move more heat (BTUs) than if I have 10 degrees difference. I can make my Harmon have that same data by slowing down the distribution fan and keeping the local air in contact with the steel longer (same as if I had a bigger exchanger).

You have all seen it when the distribution fan shuts off the stove gets hotter and the air trickling out gets hot to. I have personally gotten mine to 300*

The method of using the two temps only makes sense when both combustion and distribution air are pushing through the same volume and both are turbulent and the stove is in steady state operation.


All this being said and all things being equal the exchanger does what does to get the heat out and there are a few things designers can do to improve on this but, there is more bang for the buck in getting more energy out of the pellet first and gasification does this as well as anything. Changing out exchanger designs might gain you 5% on the heat into your house, gasification might get you another 10% realistic increase in actual heat to your house. But here is the thing, a dirty stove can easily drop your heat by 25- 30%.

Just my two cents take it for what it is worth……

Franks said:

It was tested at 94.9 HEAT EXCHANGER EFFICIENCY by Omni Labs using the lower heat value. With a tiny bit of research , Mascoma, you would have found this website. www.paromax.ca which has a little button you can click that says "Certificate EPA" But sorry to say for my customers who have bought these stoves despite my lying to them, they were all duped. Paromax, My boss and myself all lied in order to make those sales and that document is a forgery. I have been busted!

For the more serious of you inquring who have been on these forums a while, We're still waiting for Craig to make arrangements with a lab for the biomass shootout. Hope it will be soon.

Click to expand...

I followed the link above to the EPA button and it took me to a certificate created by Paromax to state the stove meets requirements for Tax credit. I believe the requirement is 75% overall eff but is hard to tell since the Paromax certificate does not state overall Eff only this 94.6 Heat Exchanger Eff #.

I also read the older thread you linked to and the only thing I got out of it is that I am not the only one to question the #s you keep refering to. Lots of references to 86% being the overall eff for the old stove but nothing stating overall eff on new model execpt your statements.

I also like this line from one of your posts "The stove running at 2 lbs per hour of fuel will heat like a 40K btu typical stove on high"
I am no techi but 1 pound of wood pellets holds potentially about 8000btu, so the most 2 lbs of fuel could provide is 1600btu in an hour, yet it puts out more than 40,000btu?

"heats like one" yeah, but thats not a lab test, thats my opinion. Like I said, the inventor told me 94.9% heat exchanger efficiency. Let's wait to hear from Claude. I'm not to big to admit I was misinformed. This is another reason that a test by the Webmaster himself is important. He is a man of character and if he doesnt independant testing more folks will accept the results. I'll keep checking in here. I also notice that Claude never came back and posted on the original thread. I think it would do him good to get involved in these discussion. I should just post his # and extension and get you folks to badger him into visiting.

http://www.paromax.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=11&lang=en

They mention 2 different things on this page:
* 85% Efficiency Heat Transfer
The Europa is a true 94.9 % overall efficient EPA approved stove

Maybe the combo of the 85% heat exchanger and the 99% combustion efficiency is how they achieve that 94.9% overall? Just guessing.

Then I just found this quote:
· 94.9 % LHV Efficiency Patented Combustion Technology

So there is a conflicting message.

mascoma said:

Franks said:

It was tested at 94.9 HEAT EXCHANGER EFFICIENCY by Omni Labs using the lower heat value. With a tiny bit of research , Mascoma, you would have found this website. www.paromax.ca which has a little button you can click that says "Certificate EPA" But sorry to say for my customers who have bought these stoves despite my lying to them, they were all duped. Paromax, My boss and myself all lied in order to make those sales and that document is a forgery. I have been busted!

For the more serious of you inquring who have been on these forums a while, We're still waiting for Craig to make arrangements with a lab for the biomass shootout. Hope it will be soon.

Click to expand...

I followed the link above to the EPA button and it took me to a certificate created by Paromax to state the stove meets requirements for Tax credit. I believe the requirement is 75% overall eff but is hard to tell since the Paromax certificate does not state overall Eff only this 94.6 Heat Exchanger Eff #.

I also read the older thread you linked to and the only thing I got out of it is that I am not the only one to question the #s you keep refering to. Lots of references to 86% being the overall eff for the old stove but nothing stating overall eff on new model execpt your statements.

I also like this line from one of your posts "The stove running at 2 lbs per hour of fuel will heat like a 40K btu typical stove on high"
I am no techi but 1 pound of wood pellets holds potentially about 8000btu, so the most 2 lbs of fuel could provide is 1600btu in an hour, yet it puts out more than 40,000btu?

Click to expand...

Could be the stoves I am comparing it too, while using 5lbs per hour of fuel, have such a low heat exchanger efficiency that the heat output does feel similar to a different stove using less pellets.

Like Craig mentioned in the other thread, a comparison between the Europa and other stoves may not show how efficient the Europa is for heat exchanger efficiency, but it may expose just how low the true heat exchange efficiencies of typical stoves are

This is what I got back from Claude so far. I'll keep on him and keep you all posted. The combustion analysis he is speaking about was on the other thread I linked to. It was the post with all the weird looking numbers and all. Anyhow, here is Claudes initial reply. He is the one that invented the combustion technology in the Europa:

Hi Frank ,
Everything I’m reading is a little confusing with this forum ,where do you start and how do you get it to every one.
None of these people you are chatting with have the proper combustion tools to do any kind of analysis . its like trying to adjust the timing of your car by ear without any tools.
a) 86% is based on STD high heating values on web www.pelletstove.com
b) 94.9 is based on low heating values
How does one measure efficiency (sending you stats using STD high value measurements) one we changed the name to make sure it doesn’t bite back. You can offer these charts to any one you want.
Please review
c) Flue exhaust with both charts
d) Excess air with both charts
The heat exchanger system
e) Units with 12 heat exchangers pipes to heat 2500 sq ft with same size fans
f) Units with 16 heat exchangers pipes to heat 2500 sq ft “” “””
g) We have 6 pipes to heat 2500 sq ft with the same size fans
question is it the exchangers or the combustion ?

will get back to you .

Ok, here is the info from the Europa:

CALCULATION OF STOCIOMETRIC PRODUCTS, ACTUAL PRODUCTS, AND EFFICIENCY
Unit: EUROPA 75 Burn Rate: 1.08 Kg/h
Fuel: Wood pellets (B415.1 std values) EPA Certified
ULTIMATE Dry Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 19.81 ( 8517 BTU/lb)
ANALYSIS (dry basis) Fuel Moisture (% wet basis) 6.3 ( 6.7 % db)
Carbon 48.73 As-Fired C.V. (MJ/kg) 18.56 ( 7980 BTU/lb)
Hydrogen 6.87 Flue Gas Values: % Combustible in Ash: 0
Sulphur 0 % CO2 9.5 from O2: 9.46 CONVERSION FACTORS:
Nitrogen 0 % O2 10.8 from CO2: 10.75 Mj/kg = BTU/lb*.002326
Ash 0.5 % CO 0.015 F = 9/5*C+32 C+ 5/9*(F-32)
Oxygen 43.9 Flue © 93 199 F MC(wb) = MC(db)/(100+MC (db))
Total 100 Amb't © 20 68 F MC(db) = MC(wb)/(100-MC (wb))
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
Air & Flue Gas From co2 From o2 dry fuel as fired
% Excess Air 104.63 105.57 DFG 401 376 4.71
Comb'n air (Sft3/lb fuel) 154.5 155.2 Fuel H2O 75 70 0.88
Dfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 12.8 12.9 H2 688 644 8.08
Tfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 13.5 13.5 CO 8 7 0.04
Dfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 205.2 206.1 Comb. In ash 0
Dfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 153.3 154.0 Total Loss 1171 1097 13.70
Tfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 223.4 224.3 % Efficiency 86.3
Tfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 166.9 167.6
CO (lb/lb dry fuel) 0.002 0.002
Vol fraction H2O in flue 0.081 0.081
Products of Combustion at Stociometric
STOCIOMETRIC VALUES lb/lb Sft3/lb
Stociometric Air Req'd (lb/lb dry fuel) dry fuel dry fuel
Carbon (32/12.011*.01*C) 1.298 Stociometric CO2 1.786 14.57
Hydrogen (8/1.008-.01-H) 0.545 Stociometric N2 4.663 59.75
Sulphur (32/32.066*.066*.01*S) 0.000 Stociometric SO2 0.000 0.00
Total 1.844 Total dfg 6.448 74.32
Less )2 in fu 0.439 Wet products
O2 from air 1.405 H2O (reaction) 0.614 12.23
Associated N2 (76.85/23.15*.02) 4.663 H2O (fuel) 0.067 1.34
Total dry air: 6.067 Total flue gas 7.129 87.89
Stociometric % CO2: 19.6

Here is the same from another very popular pellet stove:

Unit: Model #180-5 Burn Rate: 2.18 Kg/h
Fuel: Wood pellets (B415.1 std values) EPA Exempted
ULTIMATE Dry Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 19.81 ( 8517 BTU/lb)
ANALYSIS (dry basis) Fuel Moisture (% wet basis) 6.3 ( 6.7 % db)
Carbon 48.73 As-Fired C.V. (MJ/kg) 18.56 ( 7980 BTU/lb)
Hydrogen 6.87 Flue Gas Values: % Combustible in Ash: 0
Sulphur 0 % CO2 2.65 from O2: 2.58 CONVERSION FACTORS:
Nitrogen 0 % O2 18.12 from CO2: 18.05 Mj/kg = BTU/lb*.002326
Ash 0.5 % CO 0.07 F = 9/5*C+32 C+ 5/9*(F-32)
Oxygen 43.9 Flue © 208 406 F MC(wb) = MC(db)/(100+MC (db))
Total 100 Amb't © 20 68 F MC(db) = MC(wb)/(100-MC (wb))
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
Air & Flue Gas From co2 From o2 dry fuel as fired
% Excess Air 629.53 648.71 DFG 3626 3397 42.57
Comb'n air (Sft3/lb fuel) 550.8 565.3 Fuel H2O 81 76 0.95
Dfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 44.6 45.8 H2 747 700 8.77
Tfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 45.3 46.5 CO 127 119 0.21
Dfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 967.9 993.4 Comb. In ash 0
Dfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 549.6 564.1 Total Loss 4581 4292 52.50
Tfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 991.8 1017.3 % Efficiency 47.5
Tfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 563.2 577.7
CO (lb/lb dry fuel) 0.031 0.032
Vol fraction H2O in flue 0.024 0.023
Products of Combustion at Stociometric
STOCIOMETRIC VALUES lb/lb Sft3/lb
Stociometric Air Req'd (lb/lb dry fuel) dry fuel dry fuel
Carbon (32/12.011*.01*C) 1.298 Stociometric CO2 1.786 14.57
Hydrogen (8/1.008-.01-H) 0.545 Stociometric N2 4.663 59.75
Sulphur (32/32.066*.066*.01*S) 0.000 Stociometric SO2 0.000 0.00
Total 1.844 Total dfg 6.448 74.32
Less )2 in fu 0.439 Wet products
O2 from air 1.405 H2O (reaction) 0.614 12.23
Associated N2 (76.85/23.15*.02) 4.663 H2O (fuel) 0.067 1.34
Total dry air: 6.067 Total flue gas 7.129 87.89
Stociometric % CO2:

Anyone who wants these charts emailed to them so they are easier to read, or maybe who can format them so they can be read easier, let me know. I will forward Claudes email to you.

Franks said:

Ok, here is the info from the Europa:

CALCULATION OF STOCIOMETRIC PRODUCTS, ACTUAL PRODUCTS, AND EFFICIENCY
Unit: EUROPA 75 Burn Rate: 1.08 Kg/h
Fuel: Wood pellets (B415.1 std values) EPA Certified
ULTIMATE Dry Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 19.81 ( 8517 BTU/lb)
ANALYSIS (dry basis) Fuel Moisture (% wet basis) 6.3 ( 6.7 % db)
Carbon 48.73 As-Fired C.V. (MJ/kg) 18.56 ( 7980 BTU/lb)
Hydrogen 6.87 Flue Gas Values: % Combustible in Ash: 0
Sulphur 0 % C 9.5 from O2: 9.46 CONVERSION FACTORS:
Nitrogen 0 % O2 10.8 from C: 10.75 Mj/kg = BTU/lb*.002326
Ash 0.5 % CO 0.015 F = 9/5*C+32 C+ 5/9*(F-32)
Oxygen 43.9 Flue © 93 199 F MC(wb) = MC(db)/(100+MC (db))
Total 100 Amb't © 20 68 F MC(db) = MC(wb)/(100-MC (wb))
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
Air & Flue Gas From c From o2 dry fuel as fired
% Excess Air 104.63 105.57 DFG 401 376 4.71
Comb'n air (Sft3/lb fuel) 154.5 155.2 Fuel H2 75 70 0.88
Dfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 12.8 12.9 H2 688 644 8.08
Tfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 13.5 13.5 CO 8 7 0.04
Dfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 205.2 206.1 Comb. In ash 0
Dfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 153.3 154.0 Total Loss 1171 1097 13.70
Tfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 223.4 224.3 % Efficiency 86.3
Tfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 166.9 167.6
CO (lb/lb dry fuel) 0.002 0.002
Vol fraction H2 in flue 0.081 0.081
Products of Combustion at Stociometric
STOCIOMETRIC VALUES lb/lb Sft3/lb
Stociometric Air Req'd (lb/lb dry fuel) dry fuel dry fuel
Carbon (32/12.011*.01*C) 1.298 Stociometric C 1.786 14.57
Hydrogen (8/1.008-.01-H) 0.545 Stociometric N2 4.663 59.75
Sulphur (32/32.066*.066*.01*S) 0.000 Stociometric SO2 0.000 0.00
Total 1.844 Total dfg 6.448 74.32
Less )2 in fu 0.439 Wet products
O2 from air 1.405 H2 (reaction) 0.614 12.23
Associated N2 (76.85/23.15*.02) 4.663 H2 (fuel) 0.067 1.34
Total dry air: 6.067 Total flue gas 7.129 87.89
Stociometric % C: 19.6

Here is the same from another very popular pellet stove:

Unit: Model #180-5 Burn Rate: 2.18 Kg/h
Fuel: Wood pellets (B415.1 std values) EPA Exempted
ULTIMATE Dry Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 19.81 ( 8517 BTU/lb)
ANALYSIS (dry basis) Fuel Moisture (% wet basis) 6.3 ( 6.7 % db)
Carbon 48.73 As-Fired C.V. (MJ/kg) 18.56 ( 7980 BTU/lb)
Hydrogen 6.87 Flue Gas Values: % Combustible in Ash: 0
Sulphur 0 % C 2.65 from O2: 2.58 CONVERSION FACTORS:
Nitrogen 0 % O2 18.12 from C: 18.05 Mj/kg = BTU/lb*.002326
Ash 0.5 % CO 0.07 F = 9/5*C+32 C+ 5/9*(F-32)
Oxygen 43.9 Flue © 208 406 F MC(wb) = MC(db)/(100+MC (db))
Total 100 Amb't © 20 68 F MC(db) = MC(wb)/(100-MC (wb))
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
Air & Flue Gas From c From o2 dry fuel as fired
% Excess Air 629.53 648.71 DFG 3626 3397 42.57
Comb'n air (Sft3/lb fuel) 550.8 565.3 Fuel H2 81 76 0.95
Dfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 44.6 45.8 H2 747 700 8.77
Tfg (lb/lb dry fuel) 45.3 46.5 CO 127 119 0.21
Dfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 967.9 993.4 Comb. In ash 0
Dfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 549.6 564.1 Total Loss 4581 4292 52.50
Tfg (Aft3/lb dry fuel) 991.8 1017.3 % Efficiency 47.5
Tfg (Sft3/lb dry fuel) 563.2 577.7
CO (lb/lb dry fuel) 0.031 0.032
Vol fraction H2 in flue 0.024 0.023
Products of Combustion at Stociometric
STOCIOMETRIC VALUES lb/lb Sft3/lb
Stociometric Air Req'd (lb/lb dry fuel) dry fuel dry fuel
Carbon (32/12.011*.01*C) 1.298 Stociometric C 1.786 14.57
Hydrogen (8/1.008-.01-H) 0.545 Stociometric N2 4.663 59.75
Sulphur (32/32.066*.066*.01*S) 0.000 Stociometric SO2 0.000 0.00
Total 1.844 Total dfg 6.448 74.32
Less )2 in fu 0.439 Wet products
O2 from air 1.405 H2 (reaction) 0.614 12.23
Associated N2 (76.85/23.15*.02) 4.663 H2 (fuel) 0.067 1.34
Total dry air: 6.067 Total flue gas 7.129 87.89
Stociometric % C:

Anyone who wants these charts emailed to them so they are easier to read, or maybe who can format them so they can be read easier, let me know. I will forward Claudes email to you.

Click to expand...

Franks,
This response is next to useless for anyone without a chemistry degree. Fortunately, I do this type of analysis for a living, so I will cut through all the jargon. Simply stated, this is an analysis of combustion efficiency. It is a measure of how well the fuel is converted into combustible gas and non-combustible byproducts. All new technology pellet stoves I have studied are in the range of 89%-94% combustion efficiency. Stoichiometry, in general, is defined as chemical reactions combine in definite ratios of chemicals. Since chemical reactions can neither create nor destroy matter, nor transmute one element into another, the amount of each element must be the same throughout the overall reaction. For example, the amount of element X on the reactant side must equal the amount of element X on the product side.
It seems Claudes has skirted the issue of heat transfer efficiency and cannot support your claim of 94.9% overall transfer efficiency.

So really, this brings me back to my point from the other thread. If we wanted a real life comparison of pellet stoves in order to see if this technology does what it says. (without me saying "well this guy went from 6 tons to 4 tons etc) a lab test really wouldnt cut it? We are waiting on the Webmaster to arrange such a test. How do you determine Lbs of fuel in x heat into the room as an equation? If the Europa is designed to use 30-40% less fuel than a typical pellet stove, how do you prove it? My simplified idea was to have 2 rooms, same size, same construction. Install a Europa in one and a different stove in the other, set the thermostats on 70 and see how much fuel each stove uses to maintain the temps over a week long period. If stove A uses 8 bags and the Europa uses 5.5 bags and the test can be run multiple times with similar results, that would settle the matter, wouldnt it?

I'm hoping BDPVT can chime in here since he seems to be able to cut thru all this mumbo jumbo. Like I said before, if I'm wrong..I'm wrong. I'd rather find out I'm wrong sooner than later.

As far as folks that bought stoves from me so far, they are all heating their homes with a tiny amount of fuel. This makes them happy. I don't have a single Europa customer that buys more than 3 tons of fuel per year. (we have to see after this year if that stays the same) The folks that swapped out the ole "drop pellets in a tray with holes in it" stove with the Europas are reporting much less fuel usage. So, even though I may be off on my understanding of the number, we do have a bunch of very happy customers thus far.

BDPVT, I passed along your response to Claude and I'll post here when he gets back to me.

I am really new to all of this but I learned that the higher that I set my convection blower, the more heat I put into my living space. This helps keep the heat indoors and not escape up the chimney. Also, it is less attractive, but I have my exhaust pipe exposed 16 feet up before I vent it out, therefore I get some radiant heat from it as well. You experts probably already know this but I just thought that I would share.

Now if I could save the waste heat out the exhaust pipe of my car, heat machines are so wasteful.

Franks said:

So really, this brings me back to my point from the other thread. If we wanted a real life comparison of pellet stoves in order to see if this technology does what it says. (without me saying "well this guy went from 6 tons to 4 tons etc) a lab test really wouldnt cut it? We are waiting on the Webmaster to arrange such a test. How do you determine Lbs of fuel in x heat into the room as an equation? If the Europa is designed to use 30-40% less fuel than a typical pellet stove, how do you prove it? My simplified idea was to have 2 rooms, same size, same construction. Install a Europa in one and a different stove in the other, set the thermostats on 70 and see how much fuel each stove uses to maintain the temps over a week long period. If stove A uses 8 bags and the Europa uses 5.5 bags and the test can be run multiple times with similar results, that would settle the matter, wouldnt it?

I'm hoping BDPVT can chime in here since he seems to be able to cut thru all this mumbo jumbo. Like I said before, if I'm wrong..I'm wrong. I'd rather find out I'm wrong sooner than later.

As far as folks that bought stoves from me so far, they are all heating their homes with a tiny amount of fuel. This makes them happy. I don't have a single Europa customer that buys more than 3 tons of fuel per year. (we have to see after this year if that stays the same) The folks that swapped out the ole "drop pellets in a tray with holes in it" stove with the Europas are reporting much less fuel usage. So, even though I may be off on my understanding of the number, we do have a bunch of very happy customers thus far.

BDPVT, I passed along your response to Claude and I'll post here when he gets back to me.

Click to expand...

Fair enough Franks. Let me attempt to cut through all the hype that manufacturers love to throw around to confuse the consumer.The pellet stove net efficiency rating published by manufacturers is a combined rating which includes combustion efficiency, electrical efficiency and heat transfer efficiency. Pellet stoves mostly burn at over 98% combustion efficiency, and the electrical efficiency is about 99%. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the heat transfer efficiency of a pellet stove is 60%. If you add up 98%, 99% and say 60%, you get 257. Divide that figure by three to get the overall efficiency and it comes out at 85.7%.
78% is the EPA’s assumed default efficiency for a pellet stove’s overall performance. Its clear then, that the heat transfer efficiency of pellet stoves is often less than 60%. The published Btu rating of a pellet stove relates to its combustion efficiency. This is a measure of the heat produced from burning fuel. It does not directly relate to heat available to the home as some of it disappears up the flue.
One pound of hardwood pellets will produce around 8,200 BTU’s. Softwood pellets slightly more. As combustion efficiency is so good in pellet stoves, this figure is very close to the actual heat ‘input’ of the stove. So take a stove with a published rating of 40,000 BTU/hr. Divide 40,000 by 8,200 and you see that at that output, the stove is burning 4.8 lbs. of pellets an hour. This ‘heat input rating’ is the main figure we have for assessing the capability of a pellet stove.
As well as assuming an efficiency of 78% for pellet stoves, the EPA also stipulates that they produce particulate emissions of less than 2.5 grams per hour to be approved. Tests for this must be carried out at an independent testing laboratory such as Omni. To be exempt, a pellet stove must have an air to fuel combustion ratio of more than 35:1.
From the above heat transfer efficiency figures, it’s clear that there must be a wide range of heat exchanger efficiencies in pellet stoves. Claims of heat transfer efficiencies much higher than 70% seem to be beyond the practical limitations of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
To be effective a heat exchanger must have a large surface area, and the stove must direct turbulent air evenly over that area. Bottom line? A pellet stove's ability to heat your home is only as good as the efficiency of its heat exchange system. The data below was copied from the Paromax website. It is an apples to oranges comparision. Most EPA certified pellet stoves have net efficiency similar to the Europa. I am not knocking the product, seems like a great design, just can't support the hype with the facts.
Net Efficiency (%)

Conventional wood stove
54%

Catalytic wood stove
68%

Non-certified pellet stove
33.4% to 70.5%

Paromax Certified pellet stove
86%

Masonary heater
54% to 65%

Ok, I was just on the phone with Claude again. He told me to look at the heat loss numbers of the two different stoves. They are part of that jumble of numbers I posted before, but I'll try to format that part differently here:
Europa
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
dry fuel as fired
DFG 401 376 4.71
Fuel H2O 75 70 0.88
H2 688 644 8.08
CO 8 7 0.04
Comb. In ash 0
Total Loss 1171 1097 13.70
Efficiency 86.3


Other Model
LOSSES BTU/lb BTU/lb %
dry fuel as fired
DFG 3626 3397 42.57
Fuel H2O 81 76 0.95
H2 747 700 8.77
CO 127 119 0.21
In ash 0
Total Loss 4581 4292 52.50
Efficiency 47.5

Does that make more sense? Now that aside, what could prove this better than a side by side heating comparison as I described? 2 stoves heating the same area and monitor which one uses less fuel and by how much. What I tell clients is they can heat the same area with the Europa as a typical stove and use 30-40% less fuel. That sounds good, and folks who have swapped out stoves report this, but how can it be documented in a controlled enviroment unless someone putss up some cash and arranges to run the tests?

I've offered a free stove to Craig (webmaster) but maybe there is someone else with the means and equipment to do this. You would need a location that could be divided into two seperate areas of exactly the same size. Each with its own entrance to walk in and out of for reloads. Same construction, insulation etc.

BDPVT How does the fact that most pellet stoves use a 35-1 fuel to air ratio as opposed to the 10-1 fuel to air ratio on the Europa factor into the equation? I had Claude explain it to me (part of which was patented info he asked me not to share) I wanted your thoughts. Also, he said I could pass on your response to him and if you were close to one of his trade secrets, he may just email you directly and discuss it further.

Common sense would tell me if you are pushing 3.5 times more air out the pipe it would take more heat with it and be less eff. PM me if I'm to close too a trade secret and I'll delete the post.

Franks said:

BDPVT How does the fact that most pellet stoves use a 35-1 fuel to air ratio as opposed to the 10-1 fuel to air ratio on the Europa factor into the equation? I had Claude explain it to me (part of which was patented info he asked me not to share) I wanted your thoughts. Also, he said I could pass on your response to him and if you were close to one of his trade secrets, he may just email you directly and discuss it further.

Click to expand...

Man oh man Franks I can tell you how the decrease in burn air affects those lovely equations, less heat ends up going up the flue which leads to a better overall efficiency.

Oh and one thing you need to understand if something is patented and that patent isn't under national seal it is by law public information.

Now a trade secret is a different matter entirely, trade secrets can't be patented.