heaterman: Ash buildup that requires scooping out or cleaning is measured in weeks not hours in almost every single case. Heavy users like my “favorite farmer†may have to deal with ashes on a basis of 2-3 times a week but he’s burning 70+ cords a year in model 2000’s.
Please re-read what my posts say about quantity of wood burned, ash buildup, continuous burn, and need to scoop or clean out ash, and then compare that to the statement you made about need to clean ash 2-3 times a week, and you will see that we are on the same page.
1) Part 2: During the 19 hour test burn period the Deep Portage system was using all of the btu output of the Garn, and Garn tank temperature was holding at 156F.
2) Part 2: I burned "Beginning at 12:30 pm on February 20 and ending with the last load at 6:30 am February 21, the Garn burned 1,858 lbs of wood ...." The wood was 75% red oak and the balance mostly (white) birch. I believe the math shows this to be a little over 1/2 cord of wood in 19 hours of continuous burn, or about 4.5 cords/week, or about 19 cords/month. There can be no "heavier" use than continuous burn. Even your "favorite farmer" is emptying ash 2-3 times a week, and you don't say that your "favorite farmer" burns a single boiler continuously, 24 hours/day, which is what I did for 19 hours straight. And I did not say that I could not continue to load wood into the Garn, but I did say "I don’t think I could have maintained a
continuous burn rate higher than 600,500 BTUh [100 lbs/hr] due to coals and ash build-up...."
3) I'm not knocking the Garn. My comments are exactly on point with information in the Garn manual. As I stated, "The Garn manual that Deep Portage received states that the Garn is intended for
“intermittent†use, which I take to mean firing to bring the Garn up to a desired temperature, letting the fire die out, drawing hot water from the integral storage tank, removing ash
as needed, and the[n] firing again on the “intermittent†basis." Where is the inaccuracy between my statements and the statements made by Garn? It was clear to me that after 19 hours of continuous burn at the rate of 100 lbs/hr that ash had to be removed from the Garn if it was necessary to allow the Garn to continue to burn at the 100 lb/hour rate.
4) And my comments are exactly on point with your statement. You said: "
and that continuous burn is not the recommended application of the Garn. Absolutely true!! The basic premise of any storage based system is that the boiler is allowed to fire at full burn to charge the “battery†at peak efficiency and let the building load work from that rather than direct btu input from the fire in the boiler."
Heaterman, we agree on so many things. I am disappointed when I hear you say that I have "preconceived notions and personal agenda." Everything that I did in operation of the Garn for a 19 hour continuous burn period was factual and objective. Please find fault with my methodology, and I will work to correct that. The experience I reported is based on fact, weighing wood, and measurements. My conclusions are based on those facts. Feel free to disagree with my conclusions, that is your right, but please also base that disagreement on facts or specific errors that I made to show that my conclusions are not supportable, and when you do that, I will gladly reexamine the evidence.
I know of no one who has done with a Garn, Wood Gun, and even my Tarm, what I have done in a real world operating environment: weighed wood burns, temperature measurements, and btu calculations. We all would love to see more of this so that all of us can get beyond the advertising claims, hyperbole, and anecdotal statements.
The Garn is a good boiler. I calculated 86% efficiency for the Garn, which is higher than Garn itself advertises. I believe my report is solid confirmation that the Garn does very well in the operating environment in which it is intended to be operated.
