ratings of stoves by maintenance

Depends a lot on how much you use it, the pellet quality and other such factors. Some of what is called "cleaning" is similar to raking the coals or embers in a wood stove. That is usually the daily scraping and stuff like that - again, this depends on the pellet quality.

In terms of a "real" cleaning, this is usually done every so-many tons.

I don't think there is enough accurate data to rate them this way - because burning habits, installations and pellet quality all differ.

I think it should suffice to say that Pellet stoves, in general, need attention on a regular basis is used 24/7. Whichever stove you choose...it will pay you to be handy and very familiar with it. This will save you money in a number of ways. You'll be able to fix small problems yourself and a clean stove will also produce a higher overall efficiency.

Very well said.

It's my understanding also that if you've got your pellet stove "dialed-in", that is to say that it is burning as perfectly as it can with a white/yellow flame then maintenance will be at a minimum. If I were to have my stove burning perfectly, there will be as little ash as possible collecting in the burn pot, so the frequency of emptying/cleaning the burn pot will be at a minimum. But at the same time, because it is burning so efficiently - so hot - it is this extreme heat that will melt the ash into clinkers.

My plan is to empty the burn pot daily and ensure that it remains clean. The fly ash that blows around and collects on the interior of the stove will be vacuumed out as needed. I'll probably do a thorough inside vacuuming to include the heat exchanger tubes weekly and check the entire stove at least once a month for dust/ash.

Steve

Pook said:

If I were to bet on longevity, I would bet on the horizontal system of the Englander. I have a 1999 Englander which still has the original motors and bearings for the augur feed.

Click to expand...

Impossible to say. We have had Englander customers with multiple failures - remember, 2 motors=double the chances! Also, it would seem that it is the auger design and fit in the tube that makes the difference, not whether they are moving vertical or horizontal. A tiny piece of wood wedged into the wrong place will stop any of these augers.

That's the problem with "ratings" - Pook may have never cleaned his and they last 10 years, another customer does regular cleaning and they last 2 years. Without accurate data over thousands of stoves we can't even guess.

Another point is that stove with problems....well, they tend to be the first to get fixed. So one maker might have a problem in the first year or two of a new stove, recognize it, and upgrade the part.

I guess, in the end, a good warranty is one help. But we have seen problems here with virtually EVERY pellet stove made, including the most expensive and heaviest (Harman). I think, also, that the poster was asking more about daily and weekly maintaining of the stove....as opposed to failure of parts.

After reading up on most brands and asking question I came to the conclusion that the Harmans require substantially less cleaning than the others. Supposedly they can go 2 tons + before they need to be shut down and cleaned. All they require is a daily scraping of the fire pot and this can be done while the stove is running. The clinkers get pushed over the side.
The ash container can also be emptied with the stove running.
However pellet stoves are pretty new to me having burned just 4 bags so far (3 weeks ago) but you can rest assured I plan to post my actual experiences next April / May.
These forums are really wonderful and very helpful especially when you can weed out the exaggeration and or hype vs the reality.
John

It is interesting that folks even compare an Englander and a Harman....those stoves are as 100% different as possible. Harman admittedly builds to "a standard, not a price" (their words) and Englander builds for the "working man" (their words) - translation.....Englander strives to be the low-cost producer and Harman goes for the end of the market that does not look at the price! By most definitions these are different markets.....not to say that a Englander would not make a rich man happy or a harman make a poor man pleased.....BUT, a Harman will make a poor man poorer and te Englander is unlikely to put even a dent in the rich mans wallet.

If both stoves were sitting in front of me and I could pick one (price aside), it would be the Harman for certain! However, if I had to borrow the money at credit card rates, I'd jump on the Englander quickly!

Again, it is really hard to compare these two units since they are not designed, made or intended for the same budget.

Webmaster said:

It is interesting that folks even compare an Englander and a Harman....those stoves are as 100% different as possible. Harman admittedly builds to "a standard, not a price" (their words) and Englander builds for the "working man" (their words) - translation.....Englander strives to be the low-cost producer and Harman goes for the end of the market that does not look at the price! By most definitions these are different markets.....not to say that a Englander would not make a rich man happy or a harman make a poor man pleased.....BUT, a Harman will make a poor man poorer and te Englander is unlikely to put even a dent in the rich mans wallet.

If both stoves were sitting in front of me and I could pick one (price aside), it would be the Harman for certain! However, if I had to borrow the money at credit card rates, I'd jump on the Englander quickly!

Again, it is really hard to compare these two units since they are not designed, made or intended for the same budget.

Click to expand...

Well , they are both intended to burn pellets and it`s inevitable that a comparison will be made . And IMO that`s a good thing too. When confronted with the obvious price difference one begins to wonder and ask questions why. It`s part of the learning process.
Most newbies beginning their search for a pellet burner will have to compare stoves at some point regardless of their budget. The price point , features , and differences should become readily apparent . And if the budget is truly the deciding factor, then choosing an Englander and having to clean it more often is the answer.
It`s all part of the process of determining what you need and how much you are willing to spend.
John

You are correct. Unfortunately, there are many aspects which are not apparent......or very difficult to discern.

Among these are the single most important one! Efficiency - translated as BTUs into the house per pound of pellets.

Since the vast majority of stoves are not tested in an in-home simulation environment (over various settings, with various fuels), we are left guessing at what the actual delivered heat is! As I have said before, a real world test was once done on the first generation of Pellet stoves......back in the 90's. The tests revealed efficiencies as low as BELOW 50% and as high as the high 70's......far short of the "average" 80% published at the time.

So, as with mutual funds, those hidden fees can really get you. Electricity at $120 or more per season and a lower efficiency could take thousands of dollars off the potential savings over the life of a stove. That is more than the stove cost in the first place......

One of our readers recently asked about the Thelin pellets stoves - they use only 28 watts of electric - about 1/10 of the average! In addition, Jay (the owner) had them carefully tested for Heat Transfer to the house...and he publishes the figures. I have to give him kudos for both of those efforts. These carefully designed stoves achieved 69 to 74% efficiency, which is an indication that most stoves on the market are probably lower than that.....at least until proven otherwise.

Giovanni said:

Webmaster said:

It is interesting that folks even compare an Englander and a Harman....those stoves are as 100% different as possible. Harman admittedly builds to "a standard, not a price" (their words) and Englander builds for the "working man" (their words) - translation.....Englander strives to be the low-cost producer and Harman goes for the end of the market that does not look at the price! By most definitions these are different markets.....not to say that a Englander would not make a rich man happy or a harman make a poor man pleased.....BUT, a Harman will make a poor man poorer and te Englander is unlikely to put even a dent in the rich mans wallet.

If both stoves were sitting in front of me and I could pick one (price aside), it would be the Harman for certain! However, if I had to borrow the money at credit card rates, I'd jump on the Englander quickly!

Again, it is really hard to compare these two units since they are not designed, made or intended for the same budget.

Click to expand...

Well , they are both intended to burn pellets and it`s inevitable that a comparison will be made . And IMO that`s a good thing too. When confronted with the obvious price difference one begins to wonder and ask questions why. It`s part of the learning process.
Most newbies beginning their search for a pellet burner will have to compare stoves at some point regardless of their budget. The price point , features , and differences should become readily apparent . And if the budget is truly the deciding factor, then choosing an Englander and having to clean it more often is the answer.
It`s all part of the process of determining what you need and how much you are willing to spend.
John

Click to expand...

well , if you look at it this way , a rolls royce and a chevy are both designed to get you down the road, but the difference is what ? the name, the look , the features. but both will get you where you are going. as for the pellet stove comparison , its similar harmon is recognized as the "rolls royce" of the field, we (englander) are the chevy. but pellets go in, heat comes out with both, the difference which warrants the disparagy in price are once again the name,the look, and the features. it shold be noted that harmans dealers perform in house service for warranty issues should they arise , where we as a DIY manufacturer offer help lines and more in depth instruction for customers to affect maintenance. this is one of the factors as well that determines price as im sure that the service agreement is reflected in the purchase price of the dealer based units as well.

not that im saying one is better than the other (heck i recommend harman stoves to folks in here all the time when they ask about them specifically) they are awesome units. im just putting my spin on the comparison. we and harman are in totally different markets but we do get compared often it seems , more so than with brands that are in our market (i look at that as a good thing) it all boils down though to what you as the customer wants, in look , features and degree of service.

Webmaster said:

You are correct. Unfortunately, there are many aspects which are not apparent......or very difficult to discern.

Among these are the single most important one! Efficiency - translated as BTUs into the house per pound of pellets.

Since the vast majority of stoves are not tested in an in-home simulation environment (over various settings, with various fuels), we are left guessing at what the actual delivered heat is! As I have said before, a real world test was once done on the first generation of Pellet stoves......back in the 90's. The tests revealed efficiencies as low as BELOW 50% and as high as the high 70's......far short of the "average" 80% published at the time.

So, as with mutual funds, those hidden fees can really get you. Electricity at $120 or more per season and a lower efficiency could take thousands of dollars off the potential savings over the life of a stove. That is more than the stove cost in the first place......

One of our readers recently asked about the Thelin pellets stoves - they use only 28 watts of electric - about 1/10 of the average! In addition, Jay (the owner) had them carefully tested for Heat Transfer to the house...and he publishes the figures. I have to give him kudos for both of those efforts. These carefully designed stoves achieved 69 to 74% efficiency, which is an indication that most stoves on the market are probably lower than that.....at least until proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

just tossing this out there for general consumption , EPA phase 2 certified units must achieve a minimum tested efficiency of 78% for certification. this is the "default" efficiency which most pellet stove manufacturers accept as recieving and maintaining an "actual" rated efficiency is quite a bit more expensive to the manufacturer and in most cases it isnt much higher anyway so it would not be as big a selling point as it would were it a large difference. the art of making pellet stoves more efficient has likely come a long way since the "first generation" testing was done. our "base model" 25-pdvc came in at 82.88% (if i remember right)but we list it at 78% due to the signifigant added cost needed to maintain that listed rating

if you wish to check your unit's EPA rating click this link to the EPA list of phase 2 compliant stoves http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf

you will notice virtually all pellet are at 78% non-cats at 63% and cat stoves at 72% for the reason i stated above. they must be at least that clean under lab testing to carry this certification.

granted , with woodstoves these numbers while accurate for test purposes they arent what you would see in the real world due to the different loads and wood species used in home. but the pellet stove data for efficiency is actually pretty tight in the GPH department as pellets used for the test are just like what you buy in stores.

Mike, are you sure of your facts?

You say of woodstoves "They must be at least this clean - 63 and 72" to carry certification. I always thought that these are NOT tested at all for efficiency and therefore you cannot say that they are above 63 or 72. Rather, the manufacturer chooses not to test AT ALL for efficiency (as it says on the label - Not Tested For Efficiency).

Can you clarify your statement?

As to pellet stove efficiency, if you look at Gas units with high numbers.....you will see that when the same exact units are tested by Energuide - the Canadian standard - that the "real" efficiency comes in at 15 to 20% less than the manufacturers published numbers. The reasons are simple and most of them apply to Pellet stoves and (especially) inserts also. Real efficiency must take into account a LOT of things that basic burning "steady state" efficiency does not.

I am admittedly a pundit, but when it comes to this stuff the results usually prove the point. Wood stoves tested in the field did not neatly achieve stated numbers - we know the gas stoves do not (from Energuide) and we know that the first generation of pellet stoves did not.

I would always rather promise less and deliver more than the other way around. An educated consumer is, in the end, the best one. If I go too far in trying to lower expectations, it is only because there are thousands and thousands of sales people out there telling the other story....and someone has to stand up for "reality"....although admittedly, most customers don't care about reality (they just want to buy something and feel good).

Heh,heh,heh. Englander and Harman are indeed in different markets . You won`t find one where the other is sold.
But we have choices and thats always good.
Still, I think it`s totally appropriate to compare a stove such as the small Harman P38 at $1839.00 or any other brand in that price range to an Englander. The Englander is bound to be less costly and chances are it will fit the bill.
John

Webmaster said:

Mike, are you sure of your facts?

You say of woodstoves "They must be at least this clean - 63 and 72" to carry certification. I always thought that these are NOT tested at all for efficiency and therefore you cannot say that they are above 63 or 72. Rather, the manufacturer chooses not to test AT ALL for efficiency (as it says on the label - Not Tested For Efficiency).

Can you clarify your statement?

As to pellet stove efficiency, if you look at Gas units with high numbers.....you will see that when the same exact units are tested by Energuide - the Canadian standard - that the "real" efficiency comes in at 15 to 20% less than the manufacturers published numbers. The reasons are simple and most of them apply to Pellet stoves and (especially) inserts also. Real efficiency must take into account a LOT of things that basic burning "steady state" efficiency does not.

I am admittedly a pundit, but when it comes to this stuff the results usually prove the point. Wood stoves tested in the field did not neatly achieve stated numbers - we know the gas stoves do not (from Energuide) and we know that the first generation of pellet stoves did not.

I would always rather promise less and deliver more than the other way around. An educated consumer is, in the end, the best one. If I go too far in trying to lower expectations, it is only because there are thousands and thousands of sales people out there telling the other story....and someone has to stand up for "reality"....although admittedly, most customers don't care about reality (they just want to buy something and feel good).

Click to expand...

unless i have been misinformed, (i may be wrong as i had this explained to me "ages ago") those are the minimums that must be met, the statement "not tested for efficiency " means that they were not specifically tested for an exact burn efficiency , but they still must meet the minimums, at that time they can accept "default" even if the stove burned cleaner. the stoves are tested for combustion efficiency as part of the battery they go through , the difference is if as a manufacturer you wish to pay for the additional testing initially and recertify more frequently in order to maintain this rating.

its should be noted however in the case of woodstoves , the GPH as well as rated combustion efficiency does not reflect actual in home performance BUT it does in the case of GPH give an idea of COMPARITIVELY how one stove may burn cleaner than another.

for example take our 30-NC it came in at 1.6 GPH , now its not gonna burn 45 lbs of 24% moisture oak that clean , but it will burn it a lot cleaner than a stove which came in at say 3.5GPH it really is relative. now the cleaner a unit burns based on GPH the higher percentage of actual wood is consumed. this in a way can mean higher BTU output , but thermal conductance in one stove may not be as high as in another so it really isnt a "cut and dried" method of determining one stove's dominance over another in heat output. but it does give an idea whats going up the chimney which in the "green" days we are living in it is a legitimate point to consider.


EDIT: these numbers are for COMBUSTION efficiency, thermal transfer efficiency is different, i dont know of anyone who actively tests for that. at least not at certification. but the combustion efficiency numbers i posted are correct , i checked.

it should be also noted however , stoves built today are a good bit more advanced that they may have been when that thelin was designed and produced. our PDV of today is much more efficient than the 1992 version (that stove released the same heat at almost 7lbs/hr that the current version releases at 4.5 lbs/hr) and the current one burns much cleaner.

stoveguy2esw said:

BUT it does in the case of GPH give an idea of COMPARITIVELY how one stove may burn cleaner than another.
.

Click to expand...

The one set of tests done in the field on this showed different...in fact the cat encore...the "cleanest" in the EPA tests, burned the dirtiest! The cleanest stoves made - those Everburn models from VC and Dutch last year - definitely were not performing cleaner than stoves with 2 or 3 x the EPA numbers.....members who had used other stoves before said they saw MUCH more smoke coming out the chimney!

I would argue that EPA GPH is a pass/fail type of thing...at least until we see more real world testing or even lab testing with cordwood. That is only my personal opinion, but I see no facts proving otherwise.

I think if you ask Corie of another lab guy you will find that the 63% and 72% are defaults that you do not have to pass....they are simply ones you can agree to have printed on your label in lieu of testings. Your stove could be 55 and still be labeled 63 or be 75 and be labeled 72, etc....they don't test it.....at least that is what the label clearly says.

As to Combustion efficiency and heat transfer...the first number means very little. When you buy a car, what you want to know is the MPG - how far that car will go down the highway on a gallon of gas. The equiv. for a wood or pellet stove is total efficiency.........taking into account the combustion, the heat transfer AND everything from the electric use to the amount of cold air brought in from outside. As I used to tell my customers - heck , you can burn wood VERY efficiently in a bonfire! But the heat transfer is not too good and the excess air spoils the efficiency.

Customers need to know something very simple which they usually do not know now. They know their electric heater puts out 5400 BTU into the room for the 1500 watts they put into it. They need to know how much heat the pellet stove puts into the room for the pound of pellets.....including all losses., from stack to moisture content, etc.

I suppose we will see consumer reports or even Omni do some field testing in the future on these.

I ran an oil furnace for 39 years, and no motor failures, motor failure would be the last thing I would worry about. Anyways I will have a oil furnace, wood stove and pellet, I can take my choice.

Thelin Parlor and Gnome - depending on quality of pellets and burning rate - every couple days to once a week as burn pot fills up and cannot be easily emptied. Limited ash deposits-there isn't an ash drawer like other stoves so you have to make sure all embers are extinguished before you vacuum out (or end up burning up a vacuum like I did).

Quadrafire Castile - again depending on quality of pellets and burn rate - once a week or two. Pellet quality will dictate how often clinkers form in the burn pot and will have to be broken up or else stove ignition will be prevented and burn rates will become inefficient. Advantage here is there is an ash pan to empty stove and firebox contents into so you can clean out and restart your stove with little lost time and hot embers that may exist will fall into pan and you can dispose of them safely.

Harman P61A - good cleaning can happen up to every ton of burned pellets. Burn pot doesn't require frequent cleanout due to design of feed mechanism, and clinkers do not form as they do in the Quad or Thelin. Ash drawer is HUGE in the Harman, allowing for tremendous amount of ash accumulation. Although not an endorsement for infrequent cleanings ( I do a 2 week shutdown and thorough cleanout anyway), the Harman has been the least maintenance of any of my stoves.