Does anyone know the % efficiency rating of the Englander 13-NCH? How does the real world wood consumption of this model compare to the competition? I did a search, but did not come up with anything.
Efficiency of Englander 13-NCH
- Thread starter cycloxer
- Start date
-
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
Since most manufacturers don't pop for the extra expense of having their stoves tested for heating efficiency they just use the default efficiency numbers published by the EPA. For a non-cat wood stove like the 13-NC that number is 63%.
gpcollen1
Minister of Fire
And does the actual rating really shed that much light on the subject of how is this stove going to burn in my application with my wood and me tending to it? Not to knock have a number but ...
burntime
New Member
cycloxer said:
Pretty much just saying that the number is useless since all non-cats end up with the same rating. A long running argument that pops up every now and then is that a stove with a lower emissions rating must be more efficient since it is burning the fuel more efficiently. I don't know that I subscribe to that.
I don't think it's meaningful to talk about the thermal efficiency of a woodstove...not in the same way that we talk about thermal efficiencies of other processes (internal combustion engines, for example). Efficiency of the wood burning appliance "system"...the specific appliance, the specific location, the surrounding space configuration, the presence or absence and effectiveness of forced convection...would be quantified as that percentage of the potential heat content of the fuel realized as heat transferred to the surrounding space. That depends on a lot of things, perhaps most importantly the type and moisture content of the fuel, but also on the operator. The actual thermal efficiency of a woodstove system is probably different with every load of fuel burned. 63%, 62.57%, 57.0658%...? We'll likely never know. Rick
burntime
New Member
The new ones with secondary burn do a heck of a lot better job then the older ones, other than that I do not think you can pinpoint a number like Rick says. Just install it and get dry wood, when the cold weather comes the smile is 100% efficient though
burntime said:
I believe that to be a fact...more complete combustion of the fuel before it leaves the stove and heads to daylight means more of the potential heat content of the fuel available to transfer to the space surrounding the stove. Rick
Tfin
New Member
fossil said:
....kind of like finding out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie popl. ;-P
Good comments. I was more interested in a comparison with other manufacturers. In other words, how does this stove stack up to the competition? Is it better, worse, or about the same?
gpcollen1
Minister of Fire
Those who have this stove brag about it and the heat it throws. Search for it and it will yield all the bragging...
I just found it interesting that virtually every other stove manufacturer lists the efficiency rating in their product literature and on their website. I went to Englander's website and I could not find the efficiency % printed anywhere. If it is really 63%, why don't they publish the #?
cycloxer said:
Because it is somewhat of a "moot" point. Basically they can be considered to have "Passed" all the EPA required tests. That is also what the other mfg's are doing too. 63% is simply the goal line that they have to pass.
myzamboni
Minister of Fire
Just like gph emissions are open to A LOT of interpretation.
Englander is a good brand. Do the research on this site. These days the level of support a company provides seems to be the decider since most of the other factors aside from price are a wash.
Englander is a good brand. Do the research on this site. These days the level of support a company provides seems to be the decider since most of the other factors aside from price are a wash.
cycloxer said:
Perhaps because, in part, to make the number even remotely meaningful, they'd have to provide a whole page full of explanatory information about the type of fuel, the moisture content, the mass of the fuel load, the test conditions, the installation specifics, the burn temperatures and air control settings, the mass of the residual ash, and another page of calculations supporting the number...and even then, there wouldn't be anything from anybody else to compare it to. It's a darn good stove...buy it and burn it, you won't be disappointed. Rick
savageactor7
Minister of Fire
cycloxer that's still an EPA rated stove so I wouldn't worry about the lack of an efficiency rating. I know folks that burn with 'em and they're very pleased with them...they say compared to their non EPA stoves their warmer and they're using less wood...and I have a quada fire so I don't have a dog in that fight.
All the non CAT stoves are pretty much the same...comes down to what you're willing to spend for an incremental improvement and looks.
All the non CAT stoves are pretty much the same...comes down to what you're willing to spend for an incremental improvement and looks.
Yeah the few steel stove makers that publish numbers don't tell ya if those came out of their lab, where those goofy burn time number come from, or from certified testing. Certified heat transfer testing costs a bunch of money and since all plate steel radiates heat the same I would just as soon not have that extra expense built into the price I pay for a stove.
- Status
Similar threads
