New Woodstock Progress Hybrid EPA Info

[leeave96]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

 

[BrowningBAR]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

I got the email as well. The first two statements confuse me.

 

[HollowHill]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

I got the email as well. The first two statements confuse me.

Hmmm, obviously I missed something. Why are they confusing?

 

[BrowningBAR]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

I got the email as well. The first two statements confuse me.

Hmmm, obviously I missed something. Why are they confusing?

Because I have seen lower EPA emissions ratings on other stoves. Their own Fireview and the VC Defiant and VC Encore to name three.

And the "2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years" lacks clarification. What was the the BTU output? It is a 2.7 cu ft firebox, are they comparing it to other fireboxes of the same size or does it mean it has a greater output than an englander 30, an Equinox, an F600, etc. All of which have larger fireboxes. And if it is claiming it has a larger BTU output than larger stoves, how is that possible? Not saying it isn't true, I am actually wondering how a smaller stove can pump out more heat than a larger stove.

 

[Todd]

Yeah, we need more clarification on this, sounds like a tease. I'm sure all the numbers will come out Saturday for the grand unveiling. Still sounds like too much stove for my small house, I'm keeping what I got for the time being.

 

[Waulie]

Still waiting on the clearances. Their website still says they would have clearances in about two weeks from Sept. 2, and in another place by September 27th at the latest. We are getting way beyond that. I am supposedly getting the stove in three weeks and I still don't know the clearances.

I don't blame them as I know how these things go and this is out of their hands. But, I do think they have been a tad over-optimistic with regards to timelines. Thankfully, it will be in the eighties this weekend so that relieves some of my stress.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Still waiting on the clearances. Their website still says they would have clearances in about two weeks from Sept. 2, and in another place by September 27th at the latest. We are getting way beyond that. I am supposedly getting the stove in three weeks and I still don't know the clearances.

I don't blame them as I know how these things go and this is out of their hands. But, I do think they have been a tad over-optimistic with regards to timelines. Thankfully, it will be in the eighties this weekend so that relieves some of my stress.

Let's hope everything is moving along well on their end, otherwise this could be some bad PR for them, which would be a shame as they seem like good people.

 

[HollowHill]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

I got the email as well. The first two statements confuse me.

Hmmm, obviously I missed something. Why are they confusing?

Because I have seen lower EPA emissions ratings on other stoves. Their own Fireview and the VC Defiant and VC Encore to name three.

And the "2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years" lacks clarification. What was the the BTU output? It is a 2.7 cu ft firebox, are they comparing it to other fireboxes of the same size or does it mean it has a greater output than an englander 30, an Equinox, an F600, etc. All of which have larger fireboxes. And if it is claiming it has a larger BTU output than larger stoves, how is that possible? Not saying it isn't true, I am actually wondering how a smaller stove can pump out more heat than a larger stove.

Well, whilst admitting that I am the poster gal for Barnum's famous quote, I took the "2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove..." to mean any woodstove regardless of size. Now, when Blaze King and Equinox were tested, I don't know, maybe more than 20 years ago? And as for lower EPA emissions they did qualify that saying "for the higher output stoves". I'm not an engineer, but I'm assuming that increased efficiency/ less heat going up the flue is the reason it can pump out more heat. It will certainly be interesting to hear the nitty-gritty details soon (and my breath has been bated for quite some time), including, please, oh please, clearances (teeth gnashing, eyes popping). Now, if you don't mind, I've got a bridge to buy ;-)

 

[BrowningBAR]

I got an e-mail from Woodstock today and here are few bits from it:

EPA Test Results:

-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years.

-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves.

-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove.

Bill

I got the email as well. The first two statements confuse me.

Hmmm, obviously I missed something. Why are they confusing?

Because I have seen lower EPA emissions ratings on other stoves. Their own Fireview and the VC Defiant and VC Encore to name three.

And the "2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in 20 years" lacks clarification. What was the the BTU output? It is a 2.7 cu ft firebox, are they comparing it to other fireboxes of the same size or does it mean it has a greater output than an englander 30, an Equinox, an F600, etc. All of which have larger fireboxes. And if it is claiming it has a larger BTU output than larger stoves, how is that possible? Not saying it isn't true, I am actually wondering how a smaller stove can pump out more heat than a larger stove.

Well, whilst admitting that I am the poster gal for Barnum's famous quote, I took the "2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove..." to mean any woodstove regardless of size. Now, when Blaze King and Equinox were tested, I don't know, maybe more than 20 years ago? And as for lower EPA emissions they did qualify that saying "for the higher output stoves". I'm not an engineer, but I'm assuming that increased efficiency/ less heat going up the flue is the reason it can pump out more heat. It will certainly be interesting to hear the nitty-gritty details soon (and my breath has been bated for quite some time), including, please, oh please, clearances (teeth gnashing, eyes popping). Now, if you don't mind, I've got a bridge to buy ;-)

I agree, I am looking forward to hearing the details.

 

[Battenkiller]

When they were in the preliminary testing stage last year they said it was expected to produce over 90,000 BTUs. What stove produces more than that except for the Equinox? If that turned out to be true, wouldn't that make it number 2?

I guess we'll have to hold our breath and wait.

 

[fire_man]

Still waiting on the clearances. Their website still says they would have clearances in about two weeks from Sept. 2, and in another place by September 27th at the latest. We are getting way beyond that. I am supposedly getting the stove in three weeks and I still don't know the clearances.

I don't blame them as I know how these things go and this is out of their hands. But, I do think they have been a tad over-optimistic with regards to timelines. Thankfully, it will be in the eighties this weekend so that relieves some of my stress.

Let's hope everything is moving along well on their end, otherwise this could be some bad PR for them, which would be a shame as they seem like good people.

My guess is WS is just as frustrated as the rest of us about the longer than expected time line - but they are the sort of company that would rather get things right rather than rush to make a quick profit. Too many companies these days are short sighted and would rather earn a quick buck today and never mind about tomorrow. A short term high stock price is the most important factor in making decisions. I'm not saying the stove is going to be perfect after the first spin, but they gave it their best shot.

 

[BrotherBart]

When they were in the preliminary testing stage last year they said it was expected to produce over 90,000 BTUs. What stove produces more than that except for the Equinox?

Every stove made by Vogelzang. :lol:

 

[Stump_Branch]

When they were in the preliminary testing stage last year they said it was expected to produce over 90,000 BTUs. What stove produces more than that except for the Equinox?

Every stove made by Vogelzang. :lol:

120,000btu's for a potbelly stove, took the words right out my mouth...

 

[begreen]

PE Summit/Alderlea T6 @ 97K BTUS. I suspect the Kuuma Sequoia and Buck 94 are even higher.

 

[RAPhomme]

Aren't these big numbers the max outputs, with cordwood, as opposed to the EPA test charge burns, which use same-size milled-lumber bundles adjusted for firebox dimensions? So the Equinox's 120k or the T6's 97k or the BK King's 90k would be comparable to what Woodstock is advertising as the Progress' 80k max output. And the King's 37,800 EPA average high burn output, and the T6's 37,500, and the Jotul Oslo's 35,000, are the figures to compare to the Progress' mysterious "2nd highest BTU output of any stove tested by EPA in the last 20 years." (Numbers from manufacturer websites and EPA list here: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf)

Is that right or am I missing something?

It still raises the question of how a stove that isn't extraordinary in its max output (80k) can generate so much heat in the EPA high burn test. And, further, how much it matters.

And is there such a category as "high output stoves," that would justify Woodstock's wanting to specify 1.33 gm/hr emissions as being good for that group? Or is this just a general conceptual thing---that bigger stoves tend to produce more emissions?

Still hoping that the "hybrid" combination of technologies hasn't simply raised the upper-limit, short-burn capacity of the stove. That's fine and good, but more useful for me would be a longer, cleaner, more controllable medium and medium-low capacity. Maybe this will turn out to be in there too!

edited: T6 to 97k not 87k max.

 

[Waulie]

Aren’t these big numbers the max outputs, with cordwood, as opposed to the EPA test charge burns, which use same-size milled-lumber bundles adjusted for firebox dimensions? So the Equinox’s 120k or the T6’s 97k or the BK King’s 90k would be comparable to what Woodstock is advertising as the Progress’ 80k max output. And the King’s 37,800 EPA average high burn output, and the T6’s 37,500, and the Jotul Oslo’s 35,000, are the figures to compare to the Progress’ mysterious “2nd highest BTU output of any stove tested by EPA in the last 20 years.†(Numbers from manufacturer websites and EPA list here: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf)

I think you are exactly right. The manufacturers max numbers are put out by the manufacturer and have no real meaning since there isn't any standard method they are using. Some appear to be more "optimistic" than others with these numbers.

Is that right or am I missing something?

It still raises the question of how a stove that isn’t extraordinary in its max output (80k) can generate so much heat in the EPA high burn test. And, further, how much it matters.

I don't think it really mattters much.

And is there such a category as “high output stoves,†that would justify Woodstock’s wanting to specify 1.33 gm/hr emissions as being good for that group? Or is this just a general conceptual thing—-that bigger stoves tend to produce more emissions?

Still hoping that the “hybrid†combination of technologies hasn’t simply raised the upper-limit, short-burn capacity of the stove. That’s fine and good, but more useful for me would be a longer, cleaner, more controllable medium and medium-low capacity. Maybe this will turn out to be in there too!

My favorite part of the email was the part about the widest range of burn ever, or whatever it said exactly. I think we are going to see a really low, low-end burn output which I believe the EPA cuts off once emmissions reach a certain level.

 

[RAPhomme]

"Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove."

Although some of that is going to be due to the high high-burn score.

But you're probably right about the low-burn EPA score being also impressive. If a good high-burn score implies hot short-burn temps in real-world use, does a low low-burn score imply long low burns in real-life, or that the stove is good at providing low-burn control--or what?

 

[Waulie]

If a good high-burn score implies hot short-burn temps in real-world use, does a low low-burn score imply long low burns in real-life, or that the stove is good at providing low-burn control—or what?

I'm certainly not an expert, but my understand is that the EPA provides an output range within which the stove is meeting the emmisions standards. So, cat stoves have lower low end outputs because they are still burning cleanly at those lower burn rates.

For example, I would think that if the Progress comes in with the same low range as the Fireview (around 11,000 BTU), then basically you can load the thing up and let her slowly burn while getting the same heat as you would from a fireview but for much, much longer. So, I guess you could call that low-burn control.

I'm hoping the low end range isn't higher than 15,000 BTU.

 

[RAPhomme]

Just to make sure I sort of knew what I was talking about, I looked around for the actual EPA test guidelines.

Here's the statute specifying what "wood heaters" are supposed to do (allowable emissions, etc.): http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/woodstoverule.pdf.

And here's the "reference method 28" that governs (mostly) how wood stoves are actually tested to meet the EPA standards: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-28.pdf.

A couple of interesting excerpts:

7.1.4 Fuel Dimensions. The dimensions of each test
fuel piece shall conform to the nominal measurements of 2 ×
4 and 4 × 4 lumber. Each piece of test fuel (not including
spacers) shall be of equal length, except as necessary to
meet requirements in Section 8.8, and shall closely
approximate 5/6 the dimensions of the length of the usable
firebox. The fuel piece dimensions shall be determined in
relation to the appliance's firebox volume according to
guidelines listed below:
7.1.4.1 If the usable firebox volume is less than or
equal to 0.043 m3 (1.5 ft3), use 2 × 4 lumber.
7.1.4.2 If the usable firebox volume is greater than
0.043 m3 (1.5 ft3) and less than or equal to 0.085 m3 (3.0
ft3), use 2 × 4 and 4 × 4 lumber. About half the weight of
the test fuel charge shall be 2 × 4 lumber, and the
remainder shall be 4 × 4 lumber.
7.1.4.3 If the usable firebox volume is greater than
0.085 m3 (3.0 ft3), use 4 × 4 lumber.
7.2 Test Fuel Spacers. Air-dried, Douglas fir lumber
meeting the requirements outlined in Sections 7.1.1 through
7.1.3. The spacers shall be 130 × 40 × 20 mm (5 × 1.5 ×
0.75 in.).

8.1.1 Burn Rate Categories. One emission test run is
required in each of the following burn rate categories:
BURN RATE CATEGORIES
[Average kg/hr (lb/hr), dry basis)
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
< 0.80 0.80 to 1.25 1.25 to 1.90 Maximum
(< 1.76) (1.76 to 2.76) (2.76 to 4.19) burn rate
8.1.1.1 Maximum Burn Rate. For Category 4, the wood
heater shall be operated with the primary air supply inlet
controls fully open (or, if thermostatically controlled, the
thermostat shall be set at maximum heat output) during the
entire test run, or the maximum burn rate setting specified
by the manufacturer's written instructions.
8.1.1.2 Other Burn Rate Categories. For burn rates
in Categories 1 through 3, the wood heater shall be operated
with the primary air supply inlet control, or other
mechanical control device, set at a predetermined position
necessary to obtain the average burn rate required for the
category.

8.8.4 The test fuel loading density shall be 112 ±
11.2 kg/m3 (7 ± 0.7 lb/ft3) of usable firebox volume on a
wet basis.

8.12.1 Test Run Start.
8.12.1.1 When the kindling and pretest fuel have been
consumed to leave a fuel weight between 20 and 25 percent of
the weight of the test fuel charge, record the weight of the
fuel remaining and start the test run. Record and report
any other criteria, in addition to those specified in this
section, used to determine the moment of the test run start
(e.g., firebox or catalyst temperature), whether such
criteria are specified by the wood heater manufacturer or
the testing laboratory. Record all wood heater individual
surface temperatures, catalyst temperatures, any initial
sampling method measurement values, and begin the
particulate emission sampling. Within 1 minute following
the start of the test run, open the wood heater door, load
the test fuel charge, and record the test fuel charge
weight. Recording of average, rather than individual,
surface temperatures is acceptable for tests conducted in
accordance with §60.533(o)(3)(i) of 40 CFR part 60.

8.13 Test Run Completion. Continue emission sampling
and wood heater operation for 2 hours. The test run is
completed when the remaining weight of the test fuel charge
is 0.00 kg (0.0 lb). End the test run when the scale has
indicated a test fuel charge weight of 0.00 kg (0.0 lb) or
less for 30 seconds. At the end of the test run, stop the
particulate sampling, and record the final fuel weight, the
run time, and all final measurement values.

 

[Todd]

Yeah, I don't really care how high the BTU max output is, nobody stands in front of their stove and shoves in wood every hour on high burn to keep that baby maxed out, most burn in the low to medium range. I'm thinking that 1.33 GPH number is probably an average of all 4 tested burn catagories and I know cat stoves are well under 1.0 in the low burn ranges. The longer I can burn a clean low slow even output the better.