Central Boiler 1400 vs 2400

heaterman · Mar 22, 2012

Sam, you and anyone else are certainly are entitled to put your faith in all the test results, standards and methods you can find but I see the results of people believing them and taking them at face value everyday. The fact that a given unit meets the standard means very little as far as real life operation is concerned.

I would simply like to see a method that people can safely assume accurately reflects the results they will obtain. Nothing more, nothing less. The former standard as well as the current one do not.

As you said yourself, the test method is based on small airtight wood stoves rather than hydronic based heating systems. I am at a loss to explain why the powers that be cannot grasp that these are completely different animals in terms of operating characteristics. Lowering the output on a wood stove to 25% simply reduces the surface temperature of the unit and the surrounding air. Lower the output of a firebox surrounded by water to 25% and you have a fearful mess on your hands.
Ever look at the inside of a PhaseII gasser that spends most of it's time at outputs around 30-40% of full rating? It's ugly.

All I am asking and hoping for is that the agencies involved promulgate a standard that will actually tell Joe Consumer what he can expect in his own yard. That's all anyone should want.

samuel · Mar 23, 2012

Heaterman,

I really don't think you get it.

I clearly explained how OWBs are tested how they operate in the field. I never said that the tests were based upon “small airtight wood stoves." I clearly said that the laboratories, governmental organizations and manufacturers (and all of their engineers) took what they learned from over 20 years of testing indoor woodstoves to develop methods specifically applicable to outdoor wood boilers.

Yes – I have seen OWBs operating at 30-40% of the high rating. Most OWBs do not operate at the maximum output because that is simply a guide to determine the other categories. Let’s say the high output burn only last 3-6 hours – is a consumer of an OWB going to be happy with those burn times? No.

Why do you think I explained in my first post on this issue that the highest weighting regarding PM and efficiency are on the lowest burn categories? Because that is where they are used most of the time. Most manufacturers of OWB don’t size their units based upon the max Btu/hr rating (some may). The max btu/hr output has to be established to determine where to establish the other three categories.

You should be able grasp that most current wood heating test methods and ones currently in development are similar (especially when it comes to capturing PM emissions) across the board.

heaterman · Mar 23, 2012

I think we have derailed this thread enough Sam.

I remain convinced that the test results derived from the EPA28 testing OWHH's are fatally flawed. The results achieved by the manufacturers, some more than others, are skewed more toward marketing propaganda than giving consumers an accurate portrayal of how a given product may or may not perform. (Witness the exchange between Marty and Brian regarding CB's claim of 97% efficiency.)

I'm sorry but I have a very difficult time keeping a straight face when someone tells me that the EPA standard represents actual performance when I see numbers tossed around like that. Seriously. It rates right up there with the OWB salesman who told his audience at a trade show that there was no heat loss from the exposed "legs" of his wood burner because......drum roll here........"We use non-conductive steel".

There is so much misinformation, outright disinformation and half truth in the OWB industry it makes me sick. The fact that all the test protocol did was muddy the water even more and allow manufacturers to make claims of 97% or greater just plain sickens me. People, some of whom are my customers, buy this stuff and after I have installed it for them they call back and ask what is wrong with their boiler. They site references made by the dealer (who in many cases will not talk to them anymore) that the product would not creosote, cut their wood use by 70%, not smoke, etc etc. and now they are wondering what's going on. I feel like the angel of death when I have to tell them that their wood burner will not ever perform in the manner the brochure and the salesman lead them to believe.

People deserve the truth. They should not be taken advantage of by companies and persons who know how to make the numbers work for them.

I'm signing off this thread because it's serving no purpose other than arguing semantics. I would just advise a person considering any of the new OWB gassers to proceed cautiously and take what the salesman says with a grain of salt. For the most part all they know is what the factory tells them and we all know how accurate the claim of a 97% CB or a 99% whatever is. Who needs a test when the inaccuracy (to put it kindly) is right in front of ones face.

Adios Amigo

leaddog · Mar 24, 2012

samuel said:
I liked to read some of the threads but this one makes me mad. Heaterman - please STOP commenting on the EPA Test Method(s) because it appears you DO NOT have a clue! You sound like an anti-wood burning activist who feeds that garbage through their cyber balkanist sites. First - OWB manufacturer's started a process in ASTM to develop a test method for particulate matter emissions and efficiency in 2004 - the ASTM process then involves other manufacturers, test laboratories, EPA, State agencies, and any other interested parties to develop it - hence a consensus process. The STATES essentially forced the EPA to take a draft method (draft 4) of the ASTM process and implement it to start the voluntary program in January 2007 - called EPA Method 28 OWHH. Later the ASTM process finished by passing draft 12 in 2008 - ASTM E2618. So in the meantime - an unfinished draft method gets shoved down the manufacturer's throats and in order to qualify an OWB - manufacturers used independent labs that tested to the Method they were required to use to qualify an OWB. Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading? By the way - the reason that the ASTM process took 4 years is because the States could not make up their mind regarding cribwood or cordwood and what species of wood would be used. When the test methods came for indoor stoves, essentially from the Oregon wood stove laws, Oregon had chose douglas fir - softwoods in the N.W. The N.E. States involved in the OWB process chose oak.

Yes EPA Method 28 OWHH was revised and approved in August or so of 2011 to make results more accurate (requiring more moisture content readings, measurements from the boiler side to the load side, etc.) but the general requirements stayed the same. Measurements from the boilers side to the load side were already being done and only required recalculations were needed.

Did you know that EPA Test Method 28 (indoor woodstove method) uses dimensional lumber with spacers for testing? Why is it required that 4by4 cribwood with spacers be used???? Because the States demanded it and because the States want "worst case" scenario PM emission results and they believe they get it this way. However, the most important reason this fueling requirement is used is because it allows for REPEATABLE results from test laboratory to test laboratory. How to you get repeatable results from cordwood???? The cordwood option was given to manufacturers by EPA in the Phase 1 Program - why didn't more manufacturers choose this test option and provide their results to EPA? I believe only 1 manufacturer in Phase 1 chose it and then EPA abandoned it because the STATES won't allow it. Did you know that indoor woodstoves and OWBs essentially use the same PM sampling method? So how could those results be skewed? I'm sure we are all educated enough to know the difference between default efficiencies (63%, 72% and 78%) and efficiencies based upon an OUTPUT based emission limit of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu output!

One last thing - EN 303-5 used in Europe show efficiency results over 90% and they have been endorsed by States and other governmental organizations. Why does Heaterman then claim the numbers "defied the laws of physics"? I am in no way saying that the European Method is bad - I'm making a point as it is different. U.S. Methods require 4 test burn categories with highest weighting on the lower categories - the "dirtiest categories". In EN 303-5 you hand pick your burn rate, your fuel and you test. Is is proper then to compare the results? Maybe, maybe not. But why is there a problem when U.S. tests show close to or over 90% and nobody questions the EN units which show over 90%? Europe doesn't accept the U.S. methods for approval so why should the U.S. accept the EN methods?

Now to tie into the topic - the literature I saw at Expo on the E-Classic 1450 shows it meets both U.S. and EN requirements.

Also, if you are in Massachusetts and you want to install an OWB (not an indoor - meaning inside your home) you have to install a Massachusetts Certified OWB. Massachusetts requires this if you are installing an actual OWB meaning outside your house or in a shed or other structure not normally occupied by persons - http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/certohh.htm. I'm not sure other units discussed here are on that list.

I'm wondering what capacity you have with the OWB industry. It sounds like you have a lot of knowledge but it does seem to be directed to the OWB side. I know that the US wood burning is way behind the overseas guys and that we tend to burn different but we also waste alot of wood and make alot more smoke. So tell me why we have two states (Mass and MI) that demand asme stamps and some other states that don't want any wood boilers and want to ban any boilers outside or in a shed or out building not ocupied and these states don't reconize any overseas testing.
If I remember when the epa started all this garbage that Tarm and Garn apposed the testing because it wasn't representing accual use. There is way to much politics, back room dealing, trade protectionism, going on and not enough looking at clean burning tecknowledge. Who really gives a rap where the boiler is made and if it is asme or other stamped as long as it is a safe clean burning unit. If we got rid of all the fighting and lawsuits and different laws the market place would have lots of good units out there. Now some of the best units can't even be sold here cause the co. won't do bussiness here.
Does the gov have a place here? Yes but not to protect one segment of the industry. They should set down a safe min standard, and a min clean burn, that doesn't favor anyone and let the market place take over.
Did you know that in Mi a home owner can't replace his water heater legaly. Or that Geting a asme stamp for the exact same boiler can cost $2000 more. Come on that is plain stupid. Just plain stupid.
leaddog

martyinmi · Apr 3, 2012

Mass Heat,
Any decision yet?

Search

Search

Central Boiler 1400 vs 2400

heaterman

Minister of Fire

samuel

Member

heaterman

Minister of Fire

leaddog

Minister of Fire

martyinmi

Member

Similar threads