interesting site gives pellet stove efficiencies.....................

[MCPO]

............maybe it`s not that recent ?
Anyway , you can see that there isn`t a whole lot of differences in the grams per hour output on any of these pellet stoves and certification might even be meaningless with regards to the stoves net efficiency.
It`s nice to have a clean burning stove but it doesn`t necessarily mean the most efficient burning ones (lowest gph) have a high net efficiency. See: Danson`s at .9 gph and Ecotek at 2.3 gph
The proof of good heat output out the front holes is in the pudding and the pudding has to be heat transfer (heat exchanger) more than who claims the cleanest burn.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/RES/tax/docs/RETC_PelletStoves.pdf

 

[imacman]

............maybe it`s not that recent ? .....

"Revised August, 2009"

 

[MCPO]

............maybe it`s not that recent ? .....

"Revised August, 2009"

Thanks Macman. I`m gettin old , missed it at the bottom.
I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent.
I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there .
I like to go out there to drink wine , watch Fox news and scream and swear at things that are going on.
The pellets would be quick and easy for me.

 

[hossthehermit]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

 

[jtakeman]

Very interesting Gio, Thanks for sharing it with us.

I was also suprised at the Harman XXV numbers. If I wasn't busy I would try to tally up an average. Just to see if my stove was at or above it.

jay

 

[amick780]

Very interesting Gio, Thanks for sharing it with us.

I was also suprised at the Harman XXV numbers. If I wasn't busy I would try to tally up an average. Just to see if my stove was at or above it.

jay

Jay,
I was suprised with the XXV numbers as well. I wonder what the major difference is between the rest of the harman stoves. Prob not that big of a deal though. Just interesting.

 

[woodsman23]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

LOOK again....

Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Afton Bay
0.7
*
Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Ashby
1.4
*
Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Auburn
0.6
*

 

[krooser]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

Look closer under "even-temp"... amazing that the Thelin Gnome is the cleanest at .3....

 

[woodsman23]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

Look closer under "even-temp"... amazing that the Thelin Gnome is the cleanest at .3....

maybe because its so small??

 

[imacman]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

 

[krooser]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

Look closer under "even-temp"... amazing that the Thelin Gnome is the cleanest at .3....

maybe because its so small??

Dunno... must be pretty efficient... my neighbor really likes his.

 

[hossthehermit]

Notice 2 things that are veeerrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
OAK required
NO ST. CROIX models listed

LOOK again....

Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Afton Bay
0.7
*
Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Ashby
1.4
*
Even Temp, Inc.
St. Croix
Auburn
0.6
*

Ooops.

 

[BJN644]

I'd like to know how the testing was done. Look at the difference in the Harman P38 & P43, they are the same stove, one is automatic and one isn't. Seems funny that electronic automation would make a stove less efficient.

 

[MCPO]

OK, I think it`s important for folks to know exactly what a gram is.
A gram is defined as one thousandth of a kilogram (which is defined as the mass of a metal reference weight that is stored in Paris.) One gram is about what one cubic centimeter (one milliliter) of water weighs. A US nickel weighs exactly 5 grams. There are 28.3 grams in an ounce, and 453.6 in a pound.

Initially I didn`t think the differences of these GPH rates from one stove to another were of much consequence but it`s easy to see that from the above definition that even one gram per hour over a month would equate to particulate matter weighing as much as 102 nickels so for one stove to produce 50% less has to be a real accomplishment. One gram per hour is a bit more than 3 ounces of pollutants per month. Can you imagine how much those old wood stoves produce especially when dampened down for an extended burn?
Anyway the gph differences in these stoves still have little to do with net efficiencies of the stove. The key to that is still in heat transfer technology.
If I was in the market for a new pellet stove to be used as a major heat source in the house I`d feel compelled to at least check out stoves such as the Dell Point or any other stove with low exhaust temperatures. I don`t know of any other way for any knowledgeable consumer to determine the heat transfer properties of a pellet stove but for the mfrs biased advertising jargon .

 

[MCPO]

I'd like to know how the testing was done. Look at the difference in the Harman P38 & P43, they are the same stove, one is automatic and one isn't. Seems funny that electronic automation would make a stove less efficient.

It might have to do with a stove starting and stopping cycles of auto ignition, that is pellets smoldering with initial startup piles of pellets burning inefficiently for 5 minutes or more as compared to a manual stove that starts burning immediately and runs continuously .
The P-38 being a smaller stove might also heat quicker and hotter with the same amount of fuel.

 

[Fsappo]

I'd like to know how the testing was done. Look at the difference in the Harman P38 & P43, they are the same stove, one is automatic and one isn't. Seems funny that electronic automation would make a stove less efficient.

It might have to do with a stove starting and stopping cycles of auto ignition, that is pellets smoldering with initial startup piles of pellets burning inefficiently for 5 minutes or more as compared to a manual stove that starts burning immediately and runs continuously .
The P-38 being a smaller stove might also heat quicker and hotter with the same amount of fuel.

Exactly, which is why the most efficient biomass stoves in the world run on a thermostat without electronic ignition

 

[Fsappo]

Revised but they still have a stove by Dell Point which hasnt been made for 5 years. The .6 grams holds true for the newer Europa though

 

[MCPO]

....I was quite surprised how well all of the Englander models fared. Considering most of their line is sold thru big box stores this brand did excellent....I`m looking to get me an Englander pellet stove for the rear shop , replace my wood stove out there ........

Not to get anyone with a Harman stove upset, but how is it possible that the mighty Harman stoves, that are the "be all and end all" for so many people, got their efficiency butts kick by the Englander stove in almost every case??????? Any ideas, Harman people??

Just a thought , but it`s possible the Harman blow torch burn vs the Englander more natural wood flame . The Harmans seem to force a lot of air thru the fire and IMO it doesn`t allow the fire enough time to burn the gasses thoroughly.
Of course there`s almost always gonna be some kind of tradeoff and benefit with each design , such as the Harman`s terrific approach to ash removal. (blows ash away and pushes ashes over the lip)
The Dell Point appears to have an extremely good burn system but there`s sure to be some kind of trade off involved in it too.

 

[Fsappo]

The trade off is a not so pretty stove and a strange looking flame.

 

[webbie]

Notice that only the ones with an * are lab verified, which may mean that the other numbers were simply submitted by the manufacturers!

Also, IMHO, this does not say a lot because it is one test with one brand of pellets....and probably a new stove. A real test would have to be a stove that have been used for a couple tons, and have either a mixture of pellets or a "mid-grade" pellet.

Well, if I do franks Europa challenge I might just pick a Thelin to go against it........and see if Franks is really 30 or 40% more efficient than that........after all, gasification should make it so, right?

The Pellet Stove I would buy would differ depending on the fuel I had access to. Based on my ancient (90's) experiences, I found the bottom feed to be a plus in terms of dealing with the vast differences in pellets....some of that may have changed by now, but I'd give up a few points of efficiency for the ability to deal with crap.....pellets.

 

[Fsappo]

It should use 30-40% less pellets for sure. Id love to see the LHV heat exchanger efficiency difference. Can't wait

 

[BJN644]

I'd like to know how the testing was done. Look at the difference in the Harman P38 & P43, they are the same stove, one is automatic and one isn't. Seems funny that electronic automation would make a stove less efficient.

It might have to do with a stove starting and stopping cycles of auto ignition, that is pellets smoldering with initial startup piles of pellets burning inefficiently for 5 minutes or more as compared to a manual stove that starts burning immediately and runs continuously .
The P-38 being a smaller stove might also heat quicker and hotter with the same amount of fuel.

Look at the P61 &61A;, same thing one is auto and one isn't but have the same gph result. The P38 isn't smaller than the P43, just doesn't have the electronics, in "turbo mode" the 38 is rated at 43,000 btu's. Nothing to get excited about because .6 gram is really nothing.

 

[krooser]

These test results remind me of auto emission and crash test results... it's all fine and dandy in the lab but often doesn't transfer to the real world.

 

[BDPVT]

Keep in mind that this is a list of pellet stoves that passed Oregon Dept. of Energy Clean Air Standards for Particle Emmisions and have no relationship to BTU output or combustion efficiancy of these stoves. Oregon has the most stringent emmision standards regarding wood burning appliances in the country. The emmissions listed are extremely low and are considered clean burning by any standard. The difference between models listed is miniscule as the EPA testing protocol has an uncertainty of at least + - 20% at low emmision rates.
I am somewhat familiar with the scientific studies that have been conducted and it is interesting to note that particulates from top feed models were black, characteristic of carbon or soot, while bottom feeders produced light tan particles. The chemical makeup (specific gravity) of the emmisions has more to do with the difference in weight than anything else. I think this explains why the bottom feeders, like Harman, tend to show more grams per hour.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the high efficiences and low emissions of new technology pellet stoves, combined with low greenhouse gas impacts, low acid precipitation, and minimal solid waste issues, make pellet stoves an enviromentaly sound home heating option.

 

[Fsappo]

These test results remind me of auto emission and crash test results... it's all fine and dandy in the lab but often doesn't transfer to the real world.

That is a very valid point, but for sake of comparison it does provide a guideline.