In response to Sugars question on Europas gasification techniques.

[sinnian]

I know a couple of people who have an Europa to heat there whole house (both about 2200 sf), who use less pellets then other people I know who heat similar size and types of houses. Also, they clean their Europas less.

I kinda wish I had one, rather then the pellet boiler.

 

[hoverfly]

Well I hope some day they make a smaller one like my Mini, I am all ways looking to save money.

 

[Fsappo]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2xEJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,336,449#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Wow, Sugar, I never saw that document. Very interesting stuff. Thanks

 

[MCPO]

I know a couple of people who have an Europa to heat there whole house (both about 2200 sf), who use less pellets then other people I know who heat similar size and types of houses. .

.

I`ve read a few threads right here on this site how some folks heat their 2500 sq ft houses comfortably with one pellet stove burning 2-3 tons of pellets a year. Yes , exaggerations tend to run high sometimes but the undisputed facts remain that clearly shows how many BTU`s are in a ton of pellets and how many BTU`s are required to heat an average home. It`s always hard to believe claims that aren`t within those parameters.

As Franks has explained , the Europa is specifically designed to extract the gases from the pellets for a more efficient burn and when this method is used with cordwood it absolutely makes good sense since it often saves as much as 30-40% fuel and decreases contaminants in the air.
However pellets are not cordwood and is a significantly different product that is burned much differently than cord wood in a wood stove. You just aren`t going to have the amount of unburnt gases going up the flue as in a wood stove.
If in fact the Europa method does manage to extract a bit more of whatever amount of gases are left after a typical conventional pellet stove burn could it really amount to 30-40%? I`d be a bit more willing to accept something like 10-15% but anything more would have to be considered revolutionary and pretty hard to fathom and I would simply have to take it as typical manufacturer brochure advertising speak.

 

[Fsappo]

I know a couple of people who have an Europa to heat there whole house (both about 2200 sf), who use less pellets then other people I know who heat similar size and types of houses. .

.

I`ve read a few threads right here on this site how some folks heat their 2500 sq ft houses comfortably with one pellet stove burning 2-3 tons of pellets a year. Yes , exaggerations tend to run high sometimes but the undisputed facts remain that clearly shows how many BTU`s are in a ton of pellets and how many BTU`s are required to heat an average home. It`s always hard to believe claims that aren`t within those parameters.

As Franks has explained , the Europa is specifically designed to extract the gases from the pellets for a more efficient burn and when this method is used with cordwood it absolutely makes good sense since it often saves as much as 30-40% fuel and decreases contaminants in the air.
However pellets are not cordwood and is a significantly different product that is burned much differently than cord wood in a wood stove. You just aren`t going to have the amount of unburnt gases going up the flue as in a wood stove.
If in fact the Europa method does manage to extract a bit more of whatever amount of gases are left after a typical conventional pellet stove burn could it really amount to 30-40%? I`d be a bit more willing to accept something like 10-15% but anything more would have to be considered revolutionary and pretty hard to fathom and I would simply have to take it as typical manufacturer brochure advertising speak.

My thoughts exactly Gio. It just did NOT Make sense to me, until I spoke to customers telling me of pellet usage going from 6-4 tons and 5-3 tons and me clocking the feed rate at 2 lbs per hour, taking heat readings against a Regency GF55 and an AES Countryside Stove. The Europa at 2lb per hour of fuel heats like a typical stove using 3 or 4 lbs per hour. I swear it's true. I also swear its nearly impossible to convince folks over the phone or on an internet forum. But when a customer comes into my showroom, if they believe that the two stoves are running at the same feed rate, they are AMAZED at the heat difference. Doesnt mean they're gonna plunk down 5K..but they are believers after that.

Again, this is why I propose a test, side by side with any other stove out there...the only real way to see how the claims stack up

 

[webbie]

Chances are that what will be exposed is how BAD some stoves are, rather than how good this one is!

I'm reading an entire book on Thermodynamics and it is a neat subject, but the basic remain that every process known for extracting heat loses some up the chimney. In the case of a car, it is ut the tailpipe - in a nuclear reactor it is as the steam in the cooling towers, etc.

Any way you slice or dice it, the most that you can extract from wood is in the low 80's....in the field. That's my opinion. I don't doubt that this stove does that. As I mentioned before, if this stove is 85% and another 55%, this stove would use 2 tons to 3 tons in the other one.

It is HIGHLY doubtful that other top-notch pellet stoves on the market are less than 65% efficient, which might make this one use 1/4 less pellets, or 3 tons instead of 4 tons.

The fancy term "gasify" is just another word, in this case, for FLAME. If the particulates are low and the stack temp fairly low, etc....then ANY Pellet Stove is doing much of the same. The gases either get burned or expelled, there is nowhere else for them to go.

Since the makers and proponents of this model must have access to sophisticated test equipment, it might behoove them to pick up a couple of the competitors stoves and compare them....and then publish the results. Or, fork up some money to Omni or Intertek to do so.....

 

[webbie]

Ok, I propose a test.........

If I can find a lab or engineer to do so........

1. Franks provides one of these stoves.
2. We pick two decent highly claimed other models.

We compare them in a scientific test.

IF this stove turns out being 35% or more efficient than the next in line (say 80% to 59%), then I provide $5,000 worth of free advertising to the manufacturer.....besides the free stuff they get from the test......
IF the stove turns out NOT to be that much more efficient than the others, I get to keep the stove.

This is not a 100% valid offer, just putting it out there to see if Franks is interested......

 

[Fsappo]

They did, Craig. I posted the results from another stove further up on the thread. Claude just asked me not to mention the name, but it rhymes with Madrafire.
I'm just kidding, its not a quad, but it is a VERY popular stove. Claude has bought a few competitors stove and paid to have them tested. Your right, what it proved to him at least is other pellet stoves using biomass are registering 45-55% heat exchanger eff. when using the lower heat value.

Craig, wanna try out one of these stoves at your place for free for a few months? Claude has a loaner we've been sending out to prospective dealers to use. Free, Craig...freee...preciouses

 

[Fsappo]

Ok, I propose a test.........

If I can find a lab or engineer to do so........

1. Franks provides one of these stoves.
2. We pick two decent highly claimed other models.

We compare them in a scientific test.

IF this stove turns out being 35% or more efficient than the next in line (say 80% to 59%), then I provide $5,000 worth of free advertising to the manufacturer.....besides the free stuff they get from the test......
IF the stove turns out NOT to be that much more efficient than the others, I get to keep the stove.

This is not a 100% valid offer, just putting it out there to see if Franks is interested......

I'd have to run this by Claude. I have seen a 35% reduction in fuel usage, so I'm not sure how that would work out in efficiencies. If you get to keep the stove, will you use it? Would you post your thoughts and chronicle the test to keep folks in the loop on the forums?

Win or lose, it would be a win for me personally. It will help validate the claims I make to my customers, or cause me to make a bunch of apologies! I also think it would be a VERY interesting way to educate other stove makers on how to make stoves that will reduce our biomass usage. (Not sure if Claude wants that to happen or not, he may enjoy his niche)

I'll be forwarding this to him now and see.

Gentlemen...start your engines!

 

[Delta-T]

i may be able to get my hands on a 10 years old whitfield cascade to thow into the test. think the Europa can top that? huh? do ya? (yeah, prolly it can). But someones got to root for the underdog right?

 

[Fsappo]

i may be able to get my hands on a 10 years old whitfield cascade to thow into the test. think the Europa can top that? huh? do ya? (yeah, prolly it can). But someones got to root for the underdog right?

I love underdogs!

300 Spartans with the armies of 1000 nations descending upon them. "Remember this day boys, because it will be yours forever!"

 

[sinnian]

For what it is worth, there seems to be very little heat going up the flue on my friends' Europas. I have touched them when they are blazing, and I felt nothing. When I touch the flue of my PB150 when it is blazing, I definitely can feel the heat going up.

 

[Fsappo]

well, your also dealing with 130K btus going out that flue. If you want to be amazed, dont touch the pipe on a burning europa, go outside and feel the exhaust itself. Very little air moving due to the 10-1 ratio and super low air temps coming out in relation to the 280-300 degree air coming out of the heat exchanger tubes.

 

[MCPO]

For what it is worth, there seems to be very little heat going up the flue on my friends' Europas. I have touched them when they are blazing, and I felt nothing. When I touch the flue of my PB150 when it is blazing, I definitely can feel the heat going up.

The testimony (above) is definitely encouraging and lends credible support to "Franks" claims of more heat with less pellets especially *if* it uses the standard type PL vent. I mean any stove that significantly limits the amount of heat exiting the flue while blazing away has to be doing something better but I don`t see any connection to why a cooler vent is caused by a better combustion system , (supposedly as in the Europa.)
Sure, I can hold my hand on the exhaust vent on my P-38 but only when it`s set on #1 and #2 (lowest settings) and the stove isn`t exactly blazing but on anything higher the whole exhaust vent gets considerably hotter and not something I want to lay my hands on.

Regardless, I still think any net efficiency superiority or cooler vent pipe in one high end pellet stove compared against another high end one would be found in the design and materials of the heat exchanger and not so much to do with the combustion process . I`d really like to see a diagram of the heat exchanger system on the Europa.
The combustion process designs already used in most pellet stoves are already quite good with little wiggle room for improvement aside from ash/clinker handling . And being that hot operating flues aren`t required any major R&D should be concentrated on heat transfer efficiency instead. I find it a total shame to see what looks like archaic and blatantly simple designed heat exchangers fitted to such a rather high tech device.
Personally I think all pellet stove makers (maybe except the Europa?) ought to have designed a better heat exchanger system long ago. Far too much heat goes up the flue with all the ones I`ve seen running.
It would absolutely be a priority for me in any future pellet stove purchase.

 

[Fsappo]

was the humidity content of the combustion air taken into consideration? with such a refined process as gassification i think that might be a significant factor...maggie

No idea Maggie. I have Claude watching this thread. I'll let you know if he has considered this.

 

[Fsappo]

For what it is worth, there seems to be very little heat going up the flue on my friends' Europas. I have touched them when they are blazing, and I felt nothing. When I touch the flue of my PB150 when it is blazing, I definitely can feel the heat going up.

The testimony (above) is definitely encouraging and lends credible support to "Franks" claims of more heat with less pellets especially *if* it uses the standard type PL vent. I mean any stove that significantly limits the amount of heat exiting the flue while blazing away has to be doing something better but I don`t see any connection to why a cooler vent is caused by a better combustion system , (supposedly as in the Europa.)
Sure, I can hold my hand on the exhaust vent on my P-38 but only when it`s set on #1 and #2 (lowest settings) and the stove isn`t exactly blazing but on anything higher the whole exhaust vent gets considerably hotter and not something I want to lay my hands on.

Regardless, I still think any net efficiency superiority or cooler vent pipe in one high end pellet stove compared against another high end one would be found in the design and materials of the heat exchanger and not so much to do with the combustion process . I`d really like to see a diagram of the heat exchanger system on the Europa.
The combustion process designs already used in most pellet stoves are already quite good with little wiggle room for improvement aside from ash/clinker handling . And being that hot operating flues aren`t required any major R&D should be concentrated on heat transfer efficiency instead. I find it a total shame to see what looks like archaic and blatantly simple designed heat exchangers fitted to such a rather high tech device.
Personally I think all pellet stove makers (maybe except the Europa?) ought to have designed a better heat exchanger system long ago. Far too much heat goes up the flue with all the ones I`ve seen running.
It would absolutely be a priority for me in any future pellet stove purchase.

And for Sugar as well.. The heat exchanger tubes stay clean enough where the is no provision for mechanically cleaning them. Once per month with a brush on the end of a vacuum is all I do. I just do it when I turn the stove off monthly to clean the ash pan

 

[Fsappo]

was the humidity content of the combustion air taken into consideration? with such a refined process as gassification i think that might be a significant factor...maggie

No idea Maggie. I have Claude watching this thread. I'll let you know if he has considered this.

seems to me claude should be answering directly?...maggie

To me as well. I spent 20 minutes on the phone with him yesterday trying to explain how to create a log in. I am cutting and pasting the link to the responses for him. He is a combustion genius...but internet..he needs a little learnin maybe

 

[MCPO]

This link here pictures/explains a lot and gives most credit ( 35% increased heat output) to the combustiion process.
And claims 84% efficient heat transfer.
But as we all know, the manufacturers brochures are rarely if ever conservative.


http://www.paromax.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=11&lang=en

 

[Fsappo]

This link here pictures/explains a lot and gives most credit ( 35% increased heat output) to the combustiion process.
And claims 84% efficient heat transfer.
But as we all know, the manufacturers brochures are rarely if ever conservative.


http://www.paromax.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=11&lang=en

As I mentioned very clearly in an earlier post, that is a mix of old info and new info. There is also a link to the LABS TEST REPORT that shows 94.9% efficiency. Unless your accusing Claude of falsafying a document.

 

[MCPO]

If you look at the compared efficiencies of the Paromax (Europa) stove 86% and a non certified stove 70.5. you see a 20% difference (their chart) but you and I have to assume one figure is stretched one way and the other another way for enhancement purposes.
Anyway, the gap would have to be significantly narrowed using a EPA certified pellet stove .

 

[Fsappo]

Well Craig, Claude gladly accepted the challenge. Here was his response:

From: Claude Lapointe [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:20 PM
To: fsappo
Subject: RE: lookie

"Were on for the challenge
One condition
We use an authorized combustion lab and we keep our trade secrets amongst ourselves.
I can easily improve their performances on these standard units."

So, the ball is in your court. I think by doing this all parties would be doing a great service to our industry. So, say the word and I'll have a stove shipped to you within a few days. It will give you some time to get used to it prior to the testing.

Pick whatever mainstream 2 stoves you feel have the highest efficiency claim. (dont bother with the FPI GF55 with a 80%+ claim, I have one next to the Europa in my showroom. It just wouldnt be fair) Can even have our fellow forum members vote on who the other 2 applicants should be.

This is more exciting than opening kickoff for a football game.

 

[Fsappo]

If you look at the compared efficiencies of the Paromax (Europa) stove 86% and a non certified stove 70.5. you see a 20% difference (their chart) but you and I have to assume one figure is stretched one way and the other another way for enhancement purposes.
Anyway, the gap would have to be significantly narrowed using a EPA certified pellet stove .

94.9% anyhow, it's a non issue. There will always be a hand full of people saying someone is lying. Let's see if Craig goes for the race and I wont have to keep posting" Claude isnt lying" comments. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding.

 

[MCPO]

This link here pictures/explains a lot and gives most credit ( 35% increased heat output) to the combustiion process.
And claims 84% efficient heat transfer.
But as we all know, the manufacturers brochures are rarely if ever conservative.


http://www.paromax.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=11&lang=en

Unless your accusing Claude of falsafying a document.

Hold on now! Exactly where did I accuse anyone of falsefying a documet? What I wrote was that sales brochures are rarely if ever conservative. Obviously their truths almost always have a lot of wiggle room in them. You just need to be aware and not take everything for face value.
For example: an independant lab burn test paid for by a manufacturer could easily have consisted of using 10 different pellets with 10 different results under 10 different conditions purposely done to select the result which would best favor the product`s actual capability. I`m sure this is sop with many industries.


Added later: Franks , I`m certainly rooting in your corner in hopes you can somehow convince me and everyone else that there is a significantly better product out there.
The pending test in encouraging too.

 

[Fsappo]

Ok, I was being sensitive! This would be a very interesting event for sure. I bet Craig is munching on granola wondering if he should do it or not

 

[anka]

I think it will be an interesting comparison. Maunufacturers should be doing this anyways. There must be greater efficiencies we can expect from pellet heat as the market booms as it currently is. The Europa sounds promising... I would like to see on in the body of a P68 though, cause the styling is not a selling point at this time. Excellent thread!
Anka