One prominent OWB of advertised gasification design has been a frequent target of negative criticism, maybe deserved, but at the same time other mfrs, whether OWB, gasification, or other, make ambiguous and unsupported claims about efficiency, output, rate of burning wood, etc. which go unchallenged. This is common hype, "buyer beware," not unique to the wood boiler industry. It seems to me that negative criticism directed at one mfr needs to be read with the proverbial "grain of salt," unless the criticism is based on objective fact, measured performance, fully disclosed and with a method repeatable by others. Peer review possibility would be appropriate. Also very helpful would be the background test, method and data information used by the mfr to support the advertising claims. This is woefully lacking, even from the mfrs with excellent reputations. I can't claim to be fully objective in everything I say or do, but when my comments have been directed at performance, efficiency, btu output, and the like, I have based those comments on identified sources and personally measured performance and data logging, such as pounds of wood burned, delta-T and flow rates both calculated and based on differential pressure, digital DS18B20 temperature measurements, etc. Perhaps rather than basing comments on advertising, it would be better to base them on actual operation and performance of the boiler which is the object of the comments in a real world environment, not the laboratory. That would be helpful information for all of us. I would enjoy access to any high profile wood boiler in a real world install and be given the opportunity to run it through the paces and report, much as I already have done with the Tarm Solo 40, Wood Gun E500 and Garn WHS 3200. Separating fact from hype and fiction is a worthy goal.