FyreBug said:
Let me make sure I have this correct. It seems like you are saying that we should take the excellent rating of 1.6 gms/hr for the Osburn 2400 with a major grain of salt. In other words, just ignore this rating, correct?
Another woodstove recommendation.
- Thread starter mgh-pa
- Start date
-
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
Let me make sure I have this correct. It seems like you are saying that we should take the excellent rating of 1.6 gms/hr for the Osburn 2400 with a major grain of salt. In other words, just ignore this rating, correct?
No one ever accused me to be always correct! 
As far as IR radiation is concerned that is an interesting point. I'd love to put an IR camera on a stove then remove it's shield to see what happens.
Is a so called 'convective' stove better than a 'radiance' stove? That is a subject for debate that would depend on each users situation. My feeling is if you want to move more heat around the house then convection is what your after. So you'll need a blower and find a way to distribute this heat. Amish folks design their houses specifically with this in mind. (ECO Fans if they have stove, most of them burn coal or wood furnaces with large floor registers between floors) As the other PO mentioned, in his case it seems to work better. However, a block or cement unfinished (uninsulated) basement is a huge heat sink and any radiance coming form a stove in such a situation will not be of much benefit.
The point about EPA I was trying to make is the difference between a 2 vs 7.5 g/hr in 'real life' situation might be almost non existent. Also not every MFG can afford to have their own accredited EPA lab. Many have their own in-house labs for their testing then must send their unit to an accredited lab. As the 4 g/hr variance between lab suggests the results varies based on many variables.
I am by no means an EPA testing expert, nor an engineer. As a disclaimer, I must state I go from conversation with engineers and others 'in the know'. However, its possible I don't get things quite right. I'll ask Ron who designed the full line of CFM EPA wood stoves on a shoe string budget. These stoves are still part of the Century line with excellent readings and efficiencies. He's been in on EPA testing since the early days and is quite knowledgeable with this subject. I'll ask him to post directly.
As far as IR radiation is concerned that is an interesting point. I'd love to put an IR camera on a stove then remove it's shield to see what happens. Is a so called 'convective' stove better than a 'radiance' stove? That is a subject for debate that would depend on each users situation. My feeling is if you want to move more heat around the house then convection is what your after. So you'll need a blower and find a way to distribute this heat. Amish folks design their houses specifically with this in mind. (ECO Fans if they have stove, most of them burn coal or wood furnaces with large floor registers between floors) As the other PO mentioned, in his case it seems to work better. However, a block or cement unfinished (uninsulated) basement is a huge heat sink and any radiance coming form a stove in such a situation will not be of much benefit.
The point about EPA I was trying to make is the difference between a 2 vs 7.5 g/hr in 'real life' situation might be almost non existent. Also not every MFG can afford to have their own accredited EPA lab. Many have their own in-house labs for their testing then must send their unit to an accredited lab. As the 4 g/hr variance between lab suggests the results varies based on many variables.
I am by no means an EPA testing expert, nor an engineer. As a disclaimer, I must state I go from conversation with engineers and others 'in the know'. However, its possible I don't get things quite right. I'll ask Ron who designed the full line of CFM EPA wood stoves on a shoe string budget. These stoves are still part of the Century line with excellent readings and efficiencies. He's been in on EPA testing since the early days and is quite knowledgeable with this subject. I'll ask him to post directly.
Alright, I suppose at this point I have to consider whether I would be happy with a cat stove, or not. On one hand I like the idea of feeding and letting it go (what I'm used to with my older stove), but I like the idea of longer and more controlled burn times of a cat stove. Not sure I wouldn't even have a cat stove cranking though anyways just to heat the upstairs which may negate some of the wood conservation advantages.
Bert, you're very correct to point out that how a stove is run is equally important. We try to teach that here to all new woodburners. An interesting read is the Oregon testing done on several stoves in real world conditions. The finding was that as long as the stove was well maintained and burned dry wood, that it could stay close to ratings over a season of burning. The stoves that performed less optimally were poorly maintained and burning sub-optimal wood. Like my dad always said, the most important nut in a car is the nut behind the wheel.
"The average emissions rate for the five chimney sweep maintained woodstove systems was 4.8 grams per hour (g/hr). This is very close to the average certification value, 4.2 g/hr, derived in laboratory testing for those stove models. All of these stoves were non-catalytic models. The certification threshold for EPA Phase 2 certified non-catalytic stoves is 7.5 g/hr.
The average emissions rate for the 11 stoves with unknown maintenance histories was 13.8 g/hr, while the average certification value for those stoves was 3.9 g/hr. These stoves included five catalytic models. The certification threshold for Phase 2 catalytic stoves is 4.1 g/hr."
http://www.chimneysweepnews.com/epasays.htm
"The average emissions rate for the five chimney sweep maintained woodstove systems was 4.8 grams per hour (g/hr). This is very close to the average certification value, 4.2 g/hr, derived in laboratory testing for those stove models. All of these stoves were non-catalytic models. The certification threshold for EPA Phase 2 certified non-catalytic stoves is 7.5 g/hr.
The average emissions rate for the 11 stoves with unknown maintenance histories was 13.8 g/hr, while the average certification value for those stoves was 3.9 g/hr. These stoves included five catalytic models. The certification threshold for Phase 2 catalytic stoves is 4.1 g/hr."
http://www.chimneysweepnews.com/epasays.htm
Please bear with me as I'll go on a limb here... I hope Ron jumps in and further educate all of us on EPA protocols and what it means in real life.
If you have a MFG who has very few firebox to certify, I assume more time can be devoted to these models to ensure maximum results are obtained. It is slightly more difficult if you have 40 or more fire chambers to keep track of. For example, SBI bought many companies in the past 10 years. Each of these already had their own fire chambers with their own ratings performed by their initial staff and labs. Over the course of time some of these had to be modified and re-certified. New models also have to be taken into account. This takes a lot of time.
To give you an idea, we are re-certifying every fire chambers that currently do not meet Washington State EPA (4.5g/hr) since this is likely to be the new EPA standards. In order to re-certify it may be as simple as to run a burn test see where you're at and change your burn procedure to make it burn better. While that sounds easy, each fire chamber has it own burning peculiarity and it may take quite a few tests to figure out how the unit burns best in order to pass the test. Some units will require minor re-design and others some more comprehensive changes.
It would be great if there were a CAD software that could predict emission, efficiencies etc... based on design parameters. Unfortunately, this doesn't exist. We are working with a local University as a sponsored project to design such software. However my guess is, this is taking a lot more time since there are many known parameters and many unknown that may affect the end result. I think this is a bit like the technology used to predict weather and storms. It's pretty good but not quite there yet. For wood stoves, nothing beats an experienced engineer and lab techs to get the results.
If you have a MFG who has very few firebox to certify, I assume more time can be devoted to these models to ensure maximum results are obtained. It is slightly more difficult if you have 40 or more fire chambers to keep track of. For example, SBI bought many companies in the past 10 years. Each of these already had their own fire chambers with their own ratings performed by their initial staff and labs. Over the course of time some of these had to be modified and re-certified. New models also have to be taken into account. This takes a lot of time.
To give you an idea, we are re-certifying every fire chambers that currently do not meet Washington State EPA (4.5g/hr) since this is likely to be the new EPA standards. In order to re-certify it may be as simple as to run a burn test see where you're at and change your burn procedure to make it burn better. While that sounds easy, each fire chamber has it own burning peculiarity and it may take quite a few tests to figure out how the unit burns best in order to pass the test. Some units will require minor re-design and others some more comprehensive changes.
It would be great if there were a CAD software that could predict emission, efficiencies etc... based on design parameters. Unfortunately, this doesn't exist. We are working with a local University as a sponsored project to design such software. However my guess is, this is taking a lot more time since there are many known parameters and many unknown that may affect the end result. I think this is a bit like the technology used to predict weather and storms. It's pretty good but not quite there yet. For wood stoves, nothing beats an experienced engineer and lab techs to get the results.
mgh-pa said:
Looks like your thread took a little turn to the technical side of things. Maybe the mods could peal away some of this interesting info and start another thread?
As far as cat stoves go there is a slight learning curve but it's not difficult. I have found my cat stoves are more set and forget than my previous non cats. Cat stoves can also be cranked up when you need the extra heat, they're not just low and slow burners.
Todd said:
Sounds good. I had always assumed cat stoves required a little more tlc, but maybe it's just a learning curve like you're saying. I suppose no matter what stove I choose, I should still try to put some thought on adding additional fans for circulation.
Just an update. Pulled the trigger on the Englander 30-NCH. Put in a HD Pittsburgh area zip code online, and picked it up for $650 and free shipping. Couldn't pass it up.
Great deal, for that price maybe you should of bought 2 and sold one later on when the price goes up and make a profit.
- Status
Similar threads
