combustion efficiency 600 vs. 1100

[stoveguy2esw]

is this for real!!?????, i just read the "hardrock" whatever it is link. skin temps of 170 degrees? suggests having the unit seperate the living room and kitchen areas because they will be the most comfortable? one part says that a 3 hour fire will impart enough energy that the device will heat for up to 24 hours, yet when talking about placing it in a "clean area" it says that there is minimal mess from carrying in wood to fire the unit 2 to 3 times a day. for starters the bloody thing weighs almost a ton 17hundered and some odd lbs. you have to put a foundation under it (it says that existing existing floor supports may need reinforcing) guess so! in the specs it talks about 84 lbs of wood in a day, i heat my house with probably 30 lbs (dunno for sure never weighed my wood before i burn it at home but figure 4 to 5 ea 4"splits 22" each per 8 to 10 hours, which sometimes only happpens once a day (at night) ) oh , and i love the way they danced around the fact that they do not have an epa certification, claiming exempt status (35-1 air fuel) which means they cannot be installed in "green stove states or localities" not to mention you just about would have to set the thing in place then build your house around it. hate to think what the cost is. and one other thing i didnt see is , what are the chimney temps (to claim 90% efficiency, they hinted at that , but have no data from listed testing agency to back it up. if 90% efficient , that means 10% of the woods imparted heat goes up the stack, this in what amounts to essentially a fireplace (brisk hot fire) i'll admit its technology that im not familiar with but i just do not see how a big hunk of rock at 170 degrees is going to (first) heat up my house if its cold, (second)radiate heat far enough in my house to heat the whole house from a central location with skin temps that low, (and three) burn cleaner than our 3.5 CF firebox 30-nc series (1.63 GPH PM) , or especially the VC which came in at 0.7 GPH PM, maybe i just dont get it, maybe im stupid or somthing , but gawd man! it just dont make any sense to me how they can have a fire in a firebox connected to a chimney that can burn cleaner than an epa unit unregulated. it wold bolo epa cert testing before it even reached operating temperature

 

[Martin Strand III]

is this for real!!?????, i just read the "hardrock" ... i just do not see how a big hunk of rock at 170 degrees is going to (first) heat up my house if its cold, (second)radiate heat far enough in my house to heat the whole house from a central location with skin temps that low

I know it seems weird but a "hunk of rock at 170 degrees" will heat (by radiant heat) objects further away than a hot metal stove at 550*. How? Because they heat differently. The explanation involves the physics of radiant heat v convective heat. Don't know if you're interested, but it's true.

Aye,
Marty

 

[Roospike]

Marty , bring yourself up to speed on how an EPA wood stove works . quoting from a website that is in competition with metal stoves is making you look bad to the people that know first hand how they work. Your information is silly and way outdated at best.

You need to take your misinformation quotes to the outdoor wood boiler stove web site , besides the running of water lines they have no idea how there wood stove works, otherwise if they did they wouldn't of bought one in the first place. :lol:

Marty , your just being a silly boy.

 

[Martin Strand III]

Roo:

Show some evidence of your own, besides cute icons and chest thumping, that will stimulate me (and the readers of this) to change view point.

You have offered nothing except your opinion. Show me something that backs it up instead of hot air.

You don't like my references and yet you offer nothing. Who is suspect? Look in the mirror.

Aye,
Marty

 

[Roospike]

Marty ,You want to know how an EPA wood stove works ? :bug: <----cute icon 4 Marty)

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

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/search/

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/QA_Templates/search//

Unsure where you have been but follow the links i posted , its seems to be a hot topic.

 

[wg_bent]

I think the one peice missing here is how much waste heat does each appliance produce. If the long heat exchange path of the masonry heater extracts more such that the stack temp at the very output is lower...the masonry heater wins. If the heat transfer of the steel stove (hey what about soapstone?) is better, the stove wins. It does seam reasonable that after a certain point where the steel stove has absorbed as much heat as possible, it either is transferring 75-80% to the room, or it's wasteing it up the flue. The Masonry heater likely never gets to the saturation point of not being able to absorbe more, so it MAY waste less.

After reading all these posts it seems to me a lot more scientific approach would be needed here with two side by side and do all the measurements.

 

[Martin Strand III]

Newb question, just point me to the right thread if needs be. .

Author quote "consider .. . .1/2 to 2/3s of the fuel value of wood is locked up in gases and volatile liquids. These emerge from the wood as it is heated in the firebox. If they do not burn, it is like throwing fuel away. Burning the gases requires temperatures in the 1100 to 1300 degree range."

How is possible that the manufacturer of my insert can claim 75% efficiency when I am burning at literally half (550 to 600) of what is required for 'good combustion', is the engineering that good ? Assuming a lot of the efficiency gain is from secondary combustion at the manifold of stainless tubes (assuming most folks have a similar setup)

Thanks

Note: author is D. Lyle, book on masonry stoves

Newb SGC:

You have asked interesting questions that do not seem to be able to be answered here by an old dude quoting "old" material to support what you suspect is actually happening (read stove not as claimed) or by those lurking this Forum brandishing brand new state of the art Phase II EPA certified metal stoves.

To be sure, there is some waste of fuel in any stove. How much with each specific and varied appliance and with each operator is the question which may have no answer.

Warren may have the best rationale; we need more information. I feel we need that, more R & D and then better products.

Aye,
Marty

 

[sgcsalsero]

Thanks, I haven't been able to get thru it all but v. interesting read. I seem to remember you have a stove in your basement ? . . maybe a couple of the experts/regular contributors (as suggested in Dec.) could mosey on over for the R&D to your place someday . . anyway I've learned a lot . ..