Inferno Factory Tour

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Went on a tour of the factory today. Saw how the whole operations looked and worked. They had about 2800 tons sitting about. Plenty of rigs loading up and rolling out...also got a copy of their last report from Twin Ports Testing. Tony Almeida showed me all of the things which they added to the operation so that they can make a better pellet.

I like having a pellet mill 3 miles from my house. I'm going to get a ton and try them out for my shop. :shut:
 

Attachments

  • scan0001.jpg
    scan0001.jpg
    69.9 KB · Views: 720
Interested on how they perform for you. Very brave of you to get a whole ton? I would have just got a few(hopefully free) bags to test.

They didn't do that good for me last year. But I will pull for them to improve.
 
j-takeman said:
Interested on how they perform for you. Very brave of you to get a whole ton? I would have just got a few(hopefully free) bags to test.

They didn't do that good for me last year. But I will pull for them to improve.

Can't beat free...I misremembered to tell you, sorry.
 
So, in comparison to Jay's testing of them, they've improved in the ash %, and average length. The "as received" BTU numbers from Twin Ports of 8262 btu/lb are still what I'd consider just "average".

Hopefully, SMWilliamson's "real world" burning results will be an improvement over last year.....but then agin, how could you get any worse???? %-P
 
imacman said:
So, in comparison to Jay's testing of them, they've improved in the ash %, and average length. The "as received" BTU numbers from Twin Ports of 8262 btu/lb are still what I'd consider just "average".

Hopefully, SMWilliamson's "real world" burning results will be an improvement over last year.....but then agin, how could you get any worse???? %-P
I'm burning them in a brand new Regency GF55 all weekend at the fair. Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P
 
smwilliamson said:
....Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P
:lol:
 
smwilliamson said:
I'm burning them in a brand new Regency GF55 all weekend at the fair. Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P

Boy that Regency GF55 looks alot like an Enviro! Sherwood Ind. have anything to do with them???
 
j-takeman said:
smwilliamson said:
I'm burning them in a brand new Regency GF55 all weekend at the fair. Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P

Boy that Regency GF55 looks alot like an Enviro! Sherwood Ind. have anything to do with them???

Yeah..they make it. It's a meridian. So is the Vista Flame VS100. I figure if I cannot become an Enviro dealer for parts...I'll become a Regency dealer and get them through them...yet another system workaround.

I have always loved the Meridian. It's a Whitfield Advantage after all.
 
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
 
smwilliamson said:
j-takeman said:
smwilliamson said:
I'm burning them in a brand new Regency GF55 all weekend at the fair. Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P

Boy that Regency GF55 looks alot like an Enviro! Sherwood Ind. have anything to do with them???

Yeah..they make it. It's a meridian. So is the Vista Flame VS100. I figure if I cannot become an Enviro dealer for parts...I'll become a Regency dealer and get them through them...yet another system workaround.

I have always loved the Meridian. It's a Whitfield Advantage after all.

Scott,
where is your shop? MA or RI? and what fair are you talking about?
 
Pellet-King said:
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
I burned Corinths & Barefoots last winter. Barefoots burned hotter but Corinths had a plumper bag so I raised the burn rate to compensate. I burn in a Eng25pdvc at a very low rate + I realize that the weather affects the heat output ESPECIALLY IF AN OAK IS USED. i'D RATHER RELY ON A STADNARDIZED TEST LAB FOR PELLET INFO. anyway, pleas consider the VOLUME of the bag when "evaluating" pellets.
 
Werm said:
smwilliamson said:
j-takeman said:
smwilliamson said:
I'm burning them in a brand new Regency GF55 all weekend at the fair. Hopefully they will be dirty as all hell, cause I'm also doing cleaning demos every three hours. %-P

Boy that Regency GF55 looks alot like an Enviro! Sherwood Ind. have anything to do with them???

Yeah..they make it. It's a meridian. So is the Vista Flame VS100. I figure if I cannot become an Enviro dealer for parts...I'll become a Regency dealer and get them through them...yet another system workaround.

I have always loved the Meridian. It's a Whitfield Advantage after all.

Scott,
where is your shop? MA or RI? and what fair are you talking about?

MA, Rehoboth Fair. Trying to get into Belchertown and Bolton, but I may be too late. The idea just came to me last weekend.
 
BLIMP said:
Pellet-King said:
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
I burned Corinths & Barefoots last winter. Barefoots burned hotter but Corinths had a plumper bag so I raised the burn rate to compensate. I burn in a Eng25pdvc at a very low rate + I realize that the weather affects the heat output ESPECIALLY IF AN OAK IS USED. i'D RATHER RELY ON A STADNARDIZED TEST LAB FOR PELLET INFO. anyway, pleas consider the VOLUME of the bag when "evaluating" pellets.

Your yelling again!

Compensating with feed to equal the temp is fine. But you would still need to check the overall burn time to see what is the "so called deal". If I test this year I will include a volume number for you. All I can do is check the weight of a 1 cubic foot box full of pellets. It will be something anyway!

You would really trust someone in a little white suit over a fellow forum members testing? You just hurt my feelings "NOT"! Real world burn testing has to have some value somewhere. I am guessing you voted #2 or #4! What else would you like checked, measure, tested or messed up??? See this thread and add your comments!

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/57098/

Your chance to add something to it and I would be interested in you comments personnally! Please speak your mind. Thanks
 
j-takeman said:
BLIMP said:
Pellet-King said:
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
I burned Corinths & Barefoots last winter. Barefoots burned hotter but Corinths had a plumper bag so I raised the burn rate to compensate. I burn in a Eng25pdvc at a very low rate + I realize that the weather affects the heat output ESPECIALLY IF AN OAK IS USED. i'D RATHER RELY ON A STADNARDIZED TEST LAB FOR PELLET INFO. anyway, pleas consider the VOLUME of the bag when "evaluating" pellets.

Your yelling again!

Compensating with feed to equal the temp is fine. But you would still need to check the overall burn time to see what is the "so called deal". If I test this year I will include a volume number for you. All I can do is check the weight of a 1 cubic foot box full of pellets. It will be something anyway!

You would really trust someone in a little white suit over a fellow forum members testing? You just hurt my feelings "NOT"! Real world burn testing has to have some value somewhere. I am guessing you voted #2 or #4! What else would you like checked, measure, tested or messed up??? See this thread and add your comments!

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/57098/

Your chance to add something to it and I would be interested in you comments personnally! Please speak your mind. Thanks
weather factors are taken into consideration when lab testing I'd guess & these are best controlled by not using an OAK. Just looking at the difference in volume between Bfoot & Corinth alerted me= plump bag vs sagbag.
 
BLIMP said:
j-takeman said:
BLIMP said:
Pellet-King said:
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
I burned Corinths & Barefoots last winter. Barefoots burned hotter but Corinths had a plumper bag so I raised the burn rate to compensate. I burn in a Eng25pdvc at a very low rate + I realize that the weather affects the heat output ESPECIALLY IF AN OAK IS USED. i'D RATHER RELY ON A STADNARDIZED TEST LAB FOR PELLET INFO. anyway, pleas consider the VOLUME of the bag when "evaluating" pellets.

Your yelling again!

Compensating with feed to equal the temp is fine. But you would still need to check the overall burn time to see what is the "so called deal". If I test this year I will include a volume number for you. All I can do is check the weight of a 1 cubic foot box full of pellets. It will be something anyway!

You would really trust someone in a little white suit over a fellow forum members testing? You just hurt my feelings "NOT"! Real world burn testing has to have some value somewhere. I am guessing you voted #2 or #4! What else would you like checked, measure, tested or messed up??? See this thread and add your comments!

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/57098/

Your chance to add something to it and I would be interested in you comments personnally! Please speak your mind. Thanks
weather factors are taken into consideration when lab testing I'd guess & these are best controlled by not using an OAK. Just looking at the difference in volume between Bfoot & Corinth alerted me= plump bag vs sagbag.

Well I will bet that the Barefoots ran longer after you compted for the heat difference with the corinth's. I take it you didn't measure temps and try to stay equal(as much as stove control would allow) and then time how long you got out of each bag?

This auger charge thing has really PMO. And I have a test that will show how much fuel is dispensed into the stove. Using a lamp cord and a digital timer. Precharge tha auger with fuel and then do say 5 10 min dumps into my as pan. Weight them and average the weight. The fuel that weights the most should net higher heat and less burn time in theory. then burn the stove to prove theory.

Would you agree???

I gonna bet the weight is so close you might be surprised. I still believe that the density of the pellet and its fiber BTU content has a play in how hot they burn!
 
a denser pellet will have a higher btu content as it will wear on the auger system more if it crunches though it requires less auger operation than a less dense pellet. btu # on the bag is by the lb & not by the volume i think. the heat differences from the hydrocarbons which are wood pellets is what i doubt varies much = a hardwood & softwood pellet have similar btu content after compressing & drying per pound.
 
All i know is jay's testing has helped me, i burned "whatever" for 11 yrs, a year ago after reading here i decided to burn some better pellets, Thanks to BTU Okies heated my house only using 1/4 tank of oil, year before i used over a 300 gallons as my stove wasn't keeping my house up to temp.
 
BLIMP said:
a denser pellet will have a higher btu content as it will wear on the auger system more if it crunches though it requires less auger operation than a less dense pellet. btu # on the bag is by the lb & not by the volume i think. the heat differences from the hydrocarbons which are wood pellets is what i doubt varies much = a hardwood & softwood pellet have similar btu content after compressing & drying per pound.

Sorry I disagree. Every species of wood has a different BTU value. Just because its ground, chipped or sawed into dust. The Fiber has the same BTU content as on the cord wood list. Adjusting the pellet density is how its equalized. Most softwoods are densely packed into the pellet. Which equalizes the BTU value. Yet the bag seems thinner even though it still has 40 lbs of wood in it! The only way to equalize a white pine pellet to have the same BTU value of White Oak is with density! It will take some facts posted to make me see it otherwise. I mean actual links I can go read, Otherwise its just hearsay!
 
Pellet-King said:
All i know is jay's testing has helped me, i burned "whatever" for 11 yrs, a year ago after reading here i decided to burn some better pellets, Thanks to BTU Okies heated my house only using 1/4 tank of oil, year before i used over a 300 gallons as my stove wasn't keeping my house up to temp.

I know its hard to keep track, But I was wondering if you used about the same amount of pellets? This may help validate what I am try to point out. Hard to get some to believe whats real. I am all for saving a buck or too, But the pellet has to heat the house or is it really a deal?

I am sure you made BTU smile really really WIDE too!
 
j-takeman said:
Pellet-King said:
All i know is jay's testing has helped me, i burned "whatever" for 11 yrs, a year ago after reading here i decided to burn some better pellets, Thanks to BTU Okies heated my house only using 1/4 tank of oil, year before i used over a 300 gallons as my stove wasn't keeping my house up to temp.

I know its hard to keep track, But I was wondering if you used about the same amount of pellets? This may help validate what I am try to point out. Hard to get some to believe whats real. I am all for saving a buck or too, But the pellet has to heat the house or is it really a deal?

I am sure you made BTU smile really really WIDE too!
http://www.woodheat.org/firewood/firewood.htm
 
j-takeman said:
BLIMP said:
j-takeman said:
BLIMP said:
Pellet-King said:
Around me there are these small signs in front of business's that say INFERNO pellet's in flames by Tri-State fuel.....i laugh when i see them, sure hope they improved, 185 degree pellets is Jay's lowest temp on his testing.
I burned Corinths & Barefoots last winter. Barefoots burned hotter but Corinths had a plumper bag so I raised the burn rate to compensate. I burn in a Eng25pdvc at a very low rate + I realize that the weather affects the heat output ESPECIALLY IF AN OAK IS USED. i'D RATHER RELY ON A STADNARDIZED TEST LAB FOR PELLET INFO. anyway, pleas consider the VOLUME of the bag when "evaluating" pellets.

Your yelling again!

Compensating with feed to equal the temp is fine. But you would still need to check the overall burn time to see what is the "so called deal". If I test this year I will include a volume number for you. All I can do is check the weight of a 1 cubic foot box full of pellets. It will be something anyway!

You would really trust someone in a little white suit over a fellow forum members testing? You just hurt my feelings "NOT"! Real world burn testing has to have some value somewhere. I am guessing you voted #2 or #4! What else would you like checked, measure, tested or messed up??? See this thread and add your comments!

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/57098/

Your chance to add something to it and I would be interested in you comments personnally! Please speak your mind. Thanks
weather factors are taken into consideration when lab testing I'd guess & these are best controlled by not using an OAK. Just looking at the difference in volume between Bfoot & Corinth alerted me= plump bag vs sagbag.

Well I will bet that the Barefoots ran longer after you compted for the heat difference with the corinth's. I take it you didn't measure temps and try to stay equal(as much as stove control would allow) and then time how long you got out of each bag?

This auger charge thing has really PMO. And I have a test that will show how much fuel is dispensed into the stove. Using a lamp cord and a digital timer. Precharge tha auger with fuel and then do say 5 10 min dumps into my as pan. Weight them and average the weight. The fuel that weights the most should net higher heat and less burn time in theory. then burn the stove to prove theory.

Would you agree???

I gonna bet the weight is so close you might be surprised. I still believe that the density of the pellet and its fiber BTU content has a play in how hot they burn!

Blimp, one last thing I JUST have to add to this is if the mills actually put what was tested in the bags as what was lab tested. I probably would feel safe using the lab testing results. The mills can send any sample to them and get these great results. But there is no system in place to ensure thats what your getting. Until then I will test my own and go by my results!

Lets hope the EPA's new standards will address this and my testing will be not needed anymore(for your sake anyway)! You can go by the test results and actually get whats on the PFI label! I will shut up now!
 
BLIMP said:

White Oak=30,600

White pine=17,100

That's million BTU's per cord. Other chart's have the approx weight per cord as well. You would need that to get a correct BTU per pound. Oak is naturally denser than Pine. So there is more Oak per weight in cord wood. Somehow you have to make the softwood heavier to equalize the BTU's. I think when they are turned to dust this may help some. But I still think it will take more softwood fiber in a pellet to make it match the hardwood pellet. Somewhere there has to be a corrected chart that states BTU's per pound. Hard to believe that a white pine pellet has more BTU's per pound than an Oak pellet with out making it denser to equalize them.

I am not trying to knock the softwoods. I know that they do burn just as hot as the hardwoods. Unfortunately the softwoods are lower BTU's on the cordwood scale charts. Hard not to use them as an example. Is it the density of the pellet process or is it only the convertion to dust that brings them closer to the end pelletized BTU value?
 
All wood, regardless of species, has about the same energy content per pound. The different species vary only in density. Traditionally, the favored trees in central North America were oak and maple because they are very dense and produce long-lasting coals...............read again
 
BLIMP said:
All wood, regardless of species, has about the same energy content per pound. The different species vary only in density. Traditionally, the favored trees in central North America were oak and maple because they are very dense and produce long-lasting coals...............read again

I did and it says about the same. About is a varience that is not explained or defined! Show me a shart for corrected BTU's per pound! "about" is not the same as having the "same" amount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.