Repairs down the road

I can't speak about the Froling, but I have 3 yrs. experience with the Innova (no problems yet). I'm not an engineer, just a DIYer, electronic hobbyist. To me the Innova seems pretty simple and straightforward. I'm pretty sure I could fix most problems myself. It's got a couple of switches to turn it on for short run or to start the boiler for a cycle run. a water temp gauge, a boiler temp sensor to shut off the fan if the water gets too hot, and a flue sensor to shut off the fan when the load is burned out. There are other switches you might see in its picture, but they are not hooked up. It's obvious on this boiler how each feature works.
The only caution I have is that this unit is made to run full out (no damper), so you should plan on storage if you get this one.
Good luck with your choice.

Fire!Fire! said:

We have been researching this for some time, and have decided to install a wood gasification system. I'm writing a separate, more detailed post to hopefully get some input on the system we are considering.

But for now, I have a basic question about long-term maintenance/repair for two particular boilers- the Tarm Solo Innova 30 or the Froling FHG Turbo3000 20/30.

Assuming that either one would work for our particular circumstances, my concern is this: I understand that the Froling, in particular, is quite a complex system, with a computer that controls everything, and parts that need to be shipped over from Europe in case of failure, etc. Perhaps this is also true of the Tarm as well– I'm not sure.

Aside from the expense of the replacement parts… What happens if, for whatever reason, we can't get those parts any longer, in 10, 15 years? What happens if there is no highly-specialized Tarm or Froling repair representative around to fix the unit? Can either of these be fixed/maintained with only local labor and basic hardware, in the event that we aren't able to get special parts flown in? If not, is there a comparable wood boiler that would be simpler to repair?

Put your tin foil hats on and imagine you're a bit paranoid, like me. Any thoughts on which, if either of these, you would want heating your house in a worst-case situation like this?

It seems like a kind of crackpot question, but I'm assuming we are all interested in a degree of self-sufficiency, and that we would also like to be using these boilers for many years to come, so… maybe worth thinking about.

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Click to expand...

I would be real surprised if Bioheat could not supply parts as needed with no need to ship them from Europe. The complexity in the Froling is the programming(software) of the computor, not the boiler itself. The computor is approx. $1000, I have never heard of one going bad either here or in the UK forums I visit. If you want a boiler that can be fixed with spit & baleing wire buy a Woodgun, these are nice boilers, no Lambda controls though. The Innova is between the 2 in my opinion. My opinion?, buy the Froling Turbo if you have the money. I've read a few posts of Tarm buyers who wished they had spent the bit extra & done this. The complexity in the Frolings computor means that it does all the adjustments for you & is a great boiler with an enviable worldwide rep., Randy

I understand your concern, but I don't think you have to worry too much about this - at least not with the Tarm. HS Tarm (a Danish company) has been around for decades and have been represented in the US for 30-plus years. I grew up in Denmark and my parents had HS Tarm boilers (oil and NG). I am not sure about the Frohling but I think it is probably similar.

I have just bought a Solo Innova 30 and I am installing 1000 gal storage (necessary with this model). The Tarm is not very complicated at all - no computer as far as I know.

Good luck!

It seems like a kind of crackpot question, but I’m assuming we are all interested in a degree of self-sufficiency, and that we would also like to be using these boilers for many years to come, so… maybe worth thinking about.
Not a crackpot question. A good question and concern. The HS Tarm company has an excellent reputation for good boilers. I almost bought one myself. I decided on a Wood Gun because I have no electronic ability whatsoever. The Wood Gun is simple. It is made in the U.S. The company has just expanded, so I don't think it is going anywhere. The Wood Gun is very effecient. Jebatty has done some extensive comparision on the larger model Wood Gun and a Garn. I was very surprised at how efficient the Wood Gun was in his study. Was about what the company claimed if I remember right. But, you will not go wrong with an H.S. Tarm. Good luck.

HenrikB said:

.... The Tarm is not very complicated at all - no computer as far as I know.

Click to expand...

I think the previous posters are using "computer" in reference to the PLC controller, which most (actually probably all) gassers would have. Perhaps some like the Frohling may use something beyond a basic PLC - who knows, maybe they're even using Vista. I share the concern of the OP - I don't want to be burning oil for 3 weeks in the middle of January while waiting for boiler parts which are being shipped from Outer Mongolia. Econoburn uses mainly off-the-shelf components, and that was a consideration in my selection process. But I think that if you go with a well-established make having a good track record, the parts should be readily available from a US dealer. But, it's a good idea on your part to ask for feedback. Good luck with it!

It seems like a kind of crackpot question, but I’m assuming we are all interested in a degree of self-sufficiency, and that we would also like to be using these boilers for many years to come, so… maybe worth thinking about.

Not a crackpot question. A good question and concern. The HS Tarm company has an excellent reputation for good boilers. I almost bought one myself. I decided on a Wood Gun because I have no electronic ability whatsoever. The Wood Gun is simple. It is made in the U.S. The company has just expanded, so I don’t think it is going anywhere. The Wood Gun is very effecient. Jebatty has done some extensive comparision on the larger model Wood Gun and a Garn. I was very surprised at how efficient the Wood Gun was in his study. Was about what the company claimed if I remember right. But, you will not go wrong with an H.S. Tarm. Good luck.

I forgot to ask you. Are you going to put a storage tank(s) in? I am really glad I did. My Wood Gun runs wide open whenever it is on because of this. Better efficiency this way, and I am hoping it stays cleaner like this as well. Keep us up to date.

I have had a Tarm Excel 2000 in steady service for over 8 years now. Very straightforward system and easy to maintain. The only thing I've had to replace is the seal on the firebox door. This is considered standard maintenance. Other than that, all I've done is fill it with wood and clean out the ash! My original refractory is still in good shape as well. No matter what boiler you decide on, consider adding a storage tank to the system. I didn't have one for the first 2 years and it was like night and day when I got it online. I have 620 gallons of storage. In the Summer, that gives me and the wife hot water for between 8-10 days. Not too bad at all! Best of luck!

Fire!Fire! said:

We would love to load the thing up once per day and forget about it, which the rep says is totally possible. Does this sound realistic? We normally use about 1200 gallons of oil per year, plus probably about a cord of firewood in the woodstove. However, we did have an energy audit and quite a bit of insulating and airsealing done this spring, so I'm hoping our btu needs will be a little lower now.

Click to expand...

I used an avg of 900 gal a yr (9-10 gal now). Loading once per day and forgetting about it is not realistic during the actual season. It's more like twice per day (morning/evening)for me with the Innova 30. In the shoulder seasons once a day is all you will need. Flyingcow also has an Innova; maybe he'll chime in with his loading schedule.

I also went through a similar thought process when we were looking at boilers. We were going between the TarmInnovaFroling and Varmebaronen boilers. After finding some "free" storage tanks (because nothing is ever really free, right?), we were able to look at more than just the Tarm Solo Plus. I liked the Froling for all of the reasons you mentioned, but I didnt like that if the computer board went it didnt appear to be the easiest to fix (I have another post on here about this somewhere, you can search if you like).

I liked the ease of cleanout of the Hx tubes of the Varm, but also there appear to only be Radio Shack-esque control components. Plus it operates on 115v, which is a perk for me for generator operation. Others start getting into 240v, and I was running out of space in a panel to run that power. Certainly doesnt apply to everyone, but it did for my situation. CAVEAT: I havent actually fired the unit yet (more threads on that too) so I cant offer my final opinions on it, but can comment on my selection process.

Isn't efficiency right up there in importance? Does that rank up their with repairs down the road? Since repairs are few and far between, and efficiency is everyday of operation, I am surprised there is not more discussion about that when choosing a boiler or furnace. Most of us are trying for independance from oil, energy efficiency, good insulation in our homes, environment friendly, etc. If you were to go out and buy a new oil or gas furnace would you only consider the ones that were 80-85% efficient? Or would you consider one that is closer to 95% efficient? I know everyone is partial to the boiler they chose, including me. But with 10-15% more efficiency I would consider a Wood Gun. At least take a hard look at it. The Garns, H.S. Tarms, Econoburns, and many more are all good boilers, I have no doubts. But the Wood Gun is also a good boiler and 10-15% more efficient. Does anyone else see that as odd that the efficiency is not being considered/weighed more? I have only had my Wood Gun on line for less than a week. But I can not believe how simple it is to operate. How quick it brings itself and 400 gallons of storage up to temperature. I have a lot to experience with it yet, :lol: I know. But as with anything we would buy, efficiency and reliability would be right up there in importance. And the Wood Gun is both. I know a guy who has been running a boiler that is almost exactly the same as the Wood Gun, in fact AHS bought them out a while ago, and he got the boiler second hand. It has to be 20 years old. He bought it cheap, put it in his basement and is running it still. They are not as fit and finish and smooth as some of the others, to say the least, but they seem to be reliable and efficient. Just something to consider. Keep us up to date on your installation. I am always curious of peoples installs. Pictures are cool. I need to get to work on posting mine. Have a good one guys. Go Yankees! :coolsmile:

Gasifier said:

Isn't efficiency right up there in importance? Does that rank up their with repairs down the road?

Click to expand...

The individual gets to decide this one.

But there's a couple big problems with even trying to discuss it, namely what precisely is meant by the word 'efficiency', and how does the number claimed by company X for boiler Y relate to the actual number of btus per pound of 20% MC wood you can expect to deliver to your load.

But even if you can truthfully say that a one type of gasifier will burn 10% less wood than all the others -- which is a pretty wild claim in my book -- for me in my situation, even if I paid the top price for the best delivered wood it would only amount to $75 a year. So an extra four or five thousand dollars for a top-of-the-line boiler couldn't possibly make sense for me on the basis of 'efficiency' alone.

But someone burning a lot more wood could easily see it differently.

It seems to me that the purchaser today enjoys an excellent array of choices for gasifiers, most or all of which do a nice job of not wasting much wood, so efficiency in most cases isn't such a big consideration.

But generally the boilers that are better for all the other reasons are also the boilers that tend to be somewhat more efficient, so it's a little hard to single out efficiency as a consideration.

Agree with ewdudley on this one.

Most manufacturers have claims of an eff #. One needs to be very cautios in putting too much faith in these claims.

Many of the tried & true designs & there are many, are very near the theoretical limit in eff unless they condense their exhaust stream to gain more eff.

If a manufacturer was claiming 10-15 % over their competition & their competition regularly gets 80-84% eff, well then that claim holds no water unless I see a condensate drain that is just pissing out condensate when their unit is running & a heat recovery system in the exhaust stream to harness that energy. No point having a unit that does condense & just lets it run out on the floor or worse rots out the chimney/boiler sooner as neither were designed for condensing.

Sales pitches are one thing. Physics another animal altogether.

I see your point gentlemen. But the testing by Jebatty seems to speak for itself. I could have sworn I read somewhere that the EPA had conducted testing on the Wood Gun at one point and was able to get over 95% efficiency as well. I will have to look that article up. I know you probably read it already.

Garn WHS3200 & Wood Gun E500 – Another Night Out [Part 4]
jebatty Posted: 27 February 2011 03:46 PM [ Ignore ]

The results:

A. Burn Rate. As for the prior week, BTUh input during the WG test burn is estimated at 600,500 (100 lbs/hour, 6,050 BTU/lb, 20% MC, 400F flue temp), same as for the Garn. I loaded the WG at the rate of 100 lbs on the hour, with one exception, that being one load of 125 lbs to see if the WG could burn at a rate higher than 100 lbs/hr. It cannot, as at the end of that hour there still was a good quantity of unburned wood in the firebox. With 100 lb loads, at the end of each hour the fire would be down to low burn (some mostly burned logs plus coals).

B. WG Temperature. The WG analog temperature gauge on the front started at 174F at 3:00 pm (outside temp of 4F), rose to 183F by 6:00 pm (outside temp of -2F), and then stayed mostly between 178-181F, up and down, until 5:00 am (outside temp of -18F) Saturday morning when the test burn ended. I ended at this time because system temperatures had fallen to a point not sufficient to maintain interior temperatures at the desired level. The “desired†minimum system supply temperature is 140F.

The WG temperature gauge reads about 5F higher than the sensor measuring WG supply, just as with the Garn. During the entire burn WG temperature gauge supply temperature ranged between 172-183F, up and down; WG sensor supply temperature ranged between 167-176F, up and down, and WG return temperature stayed at a virtual constant Correction: 151F.I attribute a significant part of the variation in supply temperature to coals blocking the slots to the gasification ceramics and impeding gasification burn in the WG. Several times I had to rake the coals away from the slots to make sure that they were open, and after doing this supply temperature would rise. This procedure is recommended in the WG manual.

C. BTU Input. Beginning at 3:00 pm on February 25 and ending with at 5:00 am on February 26, the WG burned 1,433 lbs of wood, which at 6,050 BTU/lb amounts to 8,669,650 BTU input.

D. BTU Output. I had Dallas 1-wire DS18b20 sensors located as mentioned above. This data showing delta-T WG supply/return along with calculated flow rate shows BTU output. The chart which follows shows WG measured supply and return temperatures. From the data underlying this chart, I averaged delta-T, which was 23.74F degrees. Flow rate is calculated at 50 gpm. BTUh = 23.74 x 500 x 50 = 593,500. Total hours = 14. For the 14 hour period, BTU output was 8,309,000.

E. Efficiency. Based on BTU input of 8,669,650 and BTU output of 8,309,000, efficiency can be calculated by BTU Output / BTU Input, which is 95.8%, vs 86% for the Garn.

Not only did the efficiency come out at 95.8%, it was putting out more BTUs than company claims for it. Am I not following this correctly? Maybe Jebatty can chime in here about the wood gun's Efficiency and BTU claimed and actual.

I am not trying to convince anyone to not by an H.S. Tarm or another good boiler. Just think that these should be considered more. Even with all the fancy controls, Lambda this and that, do they get the efficiency the wood gun gets. Yes or no. And all the extra controls is just more stuff that can have problems down the road. And if the Wood Gun is such a bad design, as some would claim, why is it able to get this efficiency without all the sensors, boards, and controls, etc.?

Have a good one.

Gasifier said:

I see your point gentlemen. But the testing by Jebatty seems to speak for itself. I could have sworn I read somewhere that the EPA had conducted testing on the Wood Gun at one point and was able to get over 95% efficiency as well. I will have to look that article up. I know you probably read it already.

Click to expand...

No, Jim published what the efficiency of the WoodGun would be if the pump was pumping 50 gpm, which it wasn't.

WoodGuns are great boilers, and their low stack temperatures could offer maybe a three percent efficiency advantage, on a good testing day. But they do not achieve 95% HHV efficiency without condensing, which they do not.

Jim was not testing the small WG's either. There is a lot of heat going up the chimney on these because I don't believe the exchanger is as efficient as advertised. I'd love to see a probe on each end of the thing. I've stood next to the stovepipe coming off the cyclone & been amazed at the radiated heat. The few I've seen could have been at no more than 80 percent. That said, I would have bought one in an instant over my Atmos, that was $3,000 the WG $8,000. KWB in Europe has one model around 94 percent & they caution you need a moisture tite chimney, so they are condensing some. This reminds me of the radial arm saw wars many years ago & the peak hp fiascal. You'd shove the wood into the blade & measure the greatest amperage it would draw & you'd have a 1 3/4 hp saw with 5 peak hp. Craftsman had nothing on WG, Randy

That's interesting. What was the point of calculating "if it were pumping 50GPM?" Anyway, they still have to be one of the most, if not the most efficient wood burning unit you can buy today. And putting out more BTUs than what is actually claimed by the company.

I do also see your point about cost, efficiency saved = to money in wood, etc. With the Wood gun coming in at a very good price compared to say a very high tech one like the Froling, I still think it is very impressive. When I looked at all the boilers, the Froling was so high in price I could not even believe it. Then came the installation requirements with that system.

The Wood Gun was way cheaper, and none of the high tech stuff to worry about going wrong, but the BTU output and efficiency was still there.

Jim was not testing the small WG’s either. There is a lot of heat going up the chimney on these because I don’t believe the exchanger is as efficient as advertised. I’d love to see a probe on each end of the thing. I’ve stood next to the stovepipe coming off the cyclone & been amazed at the radiated heat. The few I’ve seen could have been at no more than 80 percent. That said, I would have bought one in an instant over my Atmos, that was $3,000 the WG $8,000. KWB in Europe has one model around 94 percent & they caution you need a moisture tite chimney, so they are condensing some. This reminds me of the radial arm saw wars many years ago & the peak hp fiascal. You’d shove the wood into the blade & measure the greatest amperage it would draw & you’d have a 1 3/4 hp saw with 5 peak hp. Craftsman had nothing on WG, Randy

I do not know the temperature inside my Wood Gun's secondary burn chamber. I do know that my stack temperature is usually 275-300 Deg. That is one sign of efficiency. How did you figure the few that you have seen have not been more than 80 percent? What would Jebatty's calculations be if it was not done at the 50GPM flow like EW was talking about? I think they are more efficient than some of you "want" to believe. I wish I could get Jebatty to chime in on this. I wonder what he thinks is the actual efficiency of a Wood Gun and his opinion on them, even though he has only run them for a short period of time.

Gasifier said:

Jim was not testing the small WG’s either. There is a lot of heat going up the chimney on these because I don’t believe the exchanger is as efficient as advertised. I’d love to see a probe on each end of the thing. I’ve stood next to the stovepipe coming off the cyclone & been amazed at the radiated heat. The few I’ve seen could have been at no more than 80 percent. That said, I would have bought one in an instant over my Atmos, that was $3,000 the WG $8,000. KWB in Europe has one model around 94 percent & they caution you need a moisture tite chimney, so they are condensing some. This reminds me of the radial arm saw wars many years ago & the peak hp fiascal. You’d shove the wood into the blade & measure the greatest amperage it would draw & you’d have a 1 3/4 hp saw with 5 peak hp. Craftsman had nothing on WG, Randy

I do not know the temperature inside my Wood Gun's secondary burn chamber. I do know that my stack temperature is usually 275-300 Deg. That is one sign of efficiency. How did you figure the few that you have seen have not been more than 80 percent? What would Jebatty's calculations be if it was not done at the 50GPM flow like EW was talking about? I think they are more efficient than some of you "want" to believe. I wish I could get Jebatty to chime in on this. I wonder what he thinks is the actual efficiency of a Wood Gun and his opinion on them, even though he has only run them for a short period of time.

Click to expand...

You are excited about your new boiler & rightly so, they are very nice. How are you measuring "stack temperature?) I don't believe Jim has run any WG's of the size you have so with all due respect his would be just another opinion. If you could post on your thermometer setup that would be great, Randy

You are excited about your new boiler & rightly so, they are very nice. How are you measuring “stack temperature?) I don’t believe Jim has run any WG’s of the size you have so with all due respect his would be just another opinion. If you could post on your thermometer setup that would be great, Randy

Good point. I am excited about my boiler. I just have a cheap magnetic thermometer that sticks to the outside of the pipe stack. I know, real technical, right? Go ahead, laugh. And with all do respect to you, your opinion, and mine for that matter, are just another opinion as well. I hope your heating season goes well for all of you guys. I am actually excited about it cooling off, getting out to in the woods to cut some Ash for next year, without any bugs around, and seeing how this new beast of mine does when it gets cold. Psyched.

Good luck with whatever boiler you chose my friend.

Gasifier said:

You are excited about your new boiler & rightly so, they are very nice. How are you measuring “stack temperature?) I don’t believe Jim has run any WG’s of the size you have so with all due respect his would be just another opinion. If you could post on your thermometer setup that would be great, Randy

Good point. I am excited about my boiler. I just have a cheap magnetic thermometer that sticks to the outside of the pipe stack. I know, real technical, right? Go ahead, laugh. And with all do respect to you, your opinion, and mine for that matter, are just another opinion as well. I hope your heating season goes well for all of you guys. I am actually excited about it cooling off, getting out to in the woods to cut some Ash for next year, without any bugs around, and seeing how this new beast of mine does when it gets cold. Psyched.

Good luck with whatever boiler you chose my friend.

Click to expand...

The 300 degree temp you see on the outside of the pipe means the flue gas temp in the center is approx. 600 degrees. I run 350 to 400 typically(internal flue gas temps at pipe center) with an 84 percent supposedly efficient boiler. Enjoy your nice boiler, I'd sure like to have that stainless WG too, Randy

So, while the crystal ball is out in this thread, does anyone have input on how they think Varms will fare in 15-20 years out?