Anyone post this yet? EPA stove comparisons from Woodstock...

[Woody Stover]

What do you think? Keystone with 1.5 cu.ft. firebox puts out more BTU than an Englander 30NC with 3.5 cu.ft. and "bowels-of-Hell" secondaries?
This must have been addressed at some time on the forums, but are these EPA BTU figures just a bunch of hogwash?

http://woodstove.com/progress-hybrid#comparison chart

 

[Woody Stover]

Noooo text! :red:

 

[webbie]

http://woodstove.com/progress-hybrid#comparison chart

What do you think? Keystone with 1.5 cu.ft. firebox puts out more BTU than an Englander 30NC with 3.5 cu.ft. and "bowels-of-Hell" secondaries?
This must have been addressed at some time on the forums, but are these EPA BTU figures just a bunch of hogwash?

Well, if the figures are done with dry 2x4's and 4x4's, they may be off a bit
:coolsmile:

Still, it's a valid comparison and the efficiencies do mean something. Also, it seems as if cat/hybrids have an advantage in this test.....whether that exists after 2 years of using a cat stove is another story.

Ideally there would be a cordwood test, but I don't think it exists. Still, those are impressive efficiency numbers.

 

[SolarAndWood]

btu/hr must be heat into the space over the entire burn cycle right? So, the cat or hybrid system wins because of the more even heat output not sending all the heat up the pipe in the first third of the burn?

 

[Woody Stover]

Still, it's a valid comparison and the efficiencies do mean something.

On the "List of EPA certified wood stoves," it looks like the efficiencies are lumped into two groups; 63% for the non-cats and 72% for the cats. Yet on the Blaze King site, the claim 82.5% "overall efficiency." Attributable to different ways of measuring efficiency, maybe? I could try to get to the bottom of it, but thought maybe someone already knew. No need to re-invent the wheel. After all, now that it's nice outside, I need to use all my extra time to process more firewood. :smirk: I should be able to set a new personal-best cordage processing record when the forums go down for a day. :lol:

http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf

 

[BrowningBAR]

It's a little confusing having them state that the Heritage puts out more BTU's than the 30 and the Cat Encore and the same amount as the F600 Firelight. Meanwhile the Drolet puts out the second most BTUs even though it's nearly the same type of stove as the Englander.

Also, I wonder why they didn't list any of the Blaze King stoves.

Woodstock stoves are great stoves, but that chart offers more questions than answers.

 

[wkpoor]

Also, I wonder why they didn’t list any of the Blaze King stoves.

My guess you don't show stoves that are as good or better when your trying to sell your own. Marketing 101. I wonder how different , if at all, the test would be if it were random hardwood like most of us burn. Bottom line for me is if my chimney is clear I consider it good enough.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Also, I wonder why they didn’t list any of the Blaze King stoves.

My guess you don't show stoves that are as good or better when your trying to sell your own. Marketing 101. I wonder how different , if at all, the test would be if it were random hardwood like most of us burn. Bottom line for me is if my chimney is clear I consider it good enough.

It was less of a question and more of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge statement.

Still, it's a confusing chart.

 

[corey21]

What is this chart test result or just more questions to be answered? Looks like they came up with more confusion then facts to me.

 

[BrotherBart]

Love it. They say they have the lowest emissions of any high btu output stove but the rest of their chart pretty much says they have the only high btu output stove. :lol:

 

[certified106]

I wanted to call Hogwash when I I saw this the first time but I kept my mouth shut......It does make one pause and contemplate how they came up with those numbers though as I'm not real sure I believe what I see on that chart.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I wanted to call Hogwash when I I saw this the first time but I kept my mouth shut......It does make one pause and contemplate how they came up with those numbers though as I'm not real sure I believe what I see on that chart.

Considering I have used four of the stoves on this chart, I can say you should go with your gut feeling of not believing what you are seeing.

The 30NC and the Firelight putting out less BTUs per hour than the Keystone and the Heritage? Really?

 

[begreen]

Love it. They say they have the lowest emissions of any high btu output stove but the rest of their chart pretty much says they have the only high btu output stove. :lol:

Yes, there seems to be some discrepancies one could drive a truck through. The T6 max output (cordwood) is double the output shown in this graph. If the Progress is putting out almost twice the max of the T6, that is one heck of a furnace.

 

[Waulie]

The chart appears to be correct to me, and you can look up the numbers on the EPA website. Even PE's own website lists the T6 at 38,500 with EPA test fuel like the chart shows.

I think part of the confusion comes from what that chart actually represents. It is heat output from the high burn rate as determined from an EPA accredited lab using the epa test method. That is all it is.

Now, none of this means that a loaded up Progress provides more heat than a loaded up Equinox. It simply means that with the very specific EPA test fuel, the Progress has the highest output ever measured (unless WS is flat out lying or the lab screwed up) AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE BURN RATE.

This is from woodheat.org:

The four firing rates are high (full open air control), medium high, medium low and low. The lowest burn rate is very low; less than one dry kilogram per hour.

The question to me is how can the high output be so much higher than all the other stoves with the same exact fuel? I think the only possible answer is that at the high output, it is burning the sh*t out of that wood. If true, that really doesn't mean a whole lot to your average wood burner.

Regardless of all that, the fact remains that the Progress is an incredibly efficient wood stove that can also provide some serious heat (even without the air control full open). ;-) And really, this is a marketing document. But, one that is based on facts determined from EPA accredited labs. Most companies just say 3,000 square feet or 80,000 btus, which is based on very little and means slightly less.

Edit: Here is the link from the website I quoted: http://woodheat.org/emissions-testing.html

There appear to be pdf documents that can be found on line which describe the EPA test method, but I'm having issues with pdf's today.

 

[wkpoor]

If you removed all the data points from the graph and looked at it you clearly would want to be in the upper right hand quadrant which is where 2 of the WS stoves are at. I assumed (usually me bad) that the other stoves are where they are based on EPA test data sheets.

 

[BrotherBart]

I have to go back through EPA method 28, that is used for the testing, but as many times as I have read it my old tired mind does not remember anything in it about measuring BTU output. Of course Woodstock keeps alluding to theirs getting these numbers under the new method that hasn't been adopted yet and therefore those that have gone before were not tested under it. I need to dig into where the EPA gets those BTU numbers they publish since they don't test for efficiency. I can't see them testing for output BTU numbers.

Whatever, the surprising thing is Woodstock naming names and pointing at specific company's stoves. Ain't ever seen that happen before for sure.

 

[wkpoor]

Me of all people understands there are more reasons to buy a specific stove than just EPA test data. Because once a stove is in your home all the data in the world isn't going to mean a thing if the stuff you can see, hear, and feel doesn't function right. If the little knoby thing falls off or the ropy thing comes unglued or the rocky thing cracks you won't be thinking about how efficient it is.

 

[certified106]

The more I look at this chart the more concerned I get that we might freeze to death next winter with the T6, well either that or burn 20 cord to stay warm..... :gulp:
Now I am in a panic that my wood supply is inadequate :zip:

 

[BrotherBart]

The more I look at this chart the more concerned I get that we might freeze to death next winter with the T6, well either that or burn 20 cord to stay warm..... :gulp:
Now I am in a panic that my wood supply is inadequate :zip:

You will be fine. Reading it I figure if there is a Progress hybrid anywhere in your county your house will be warm.

 

[BrowningBAR]

This chart only reinforces the notion that BTU ratings should not be trusted when trying to determine which stove will best heat your house. This isn't magic, no matter how many times manufacturers try to make it seem like it is.

 

[Waulie]

I have to go back through EPA method 28, that is used for the testing, but as many times as I have read it my old tired mind does not remember anything in it about measuring BTU output.

I'm really curious to read through it too. I would just point out that nearly every manufacturer does list EPA output. Then, they all roughly double it for cord wood output (usually based on their own "testing"). So, it sure does appear that the EPA does monitor output.

I think a lot of people are missing the big picture here. Woodstock took their stove in for testing to an independent lab, as required by law (unless you make the Elm). They got back some fantastic numbers. They then chose to use those fantastic numbers for marketing their new product. I'm pretty darn sure we would all do the exact same thing and I don't see what is dishonest about it. These are not numbers that were determined by Woodstock. It is the results of a report they received from an independent lab. Certainly, the EPA tests are not that great in determining real world heating capabilities. But, as Woodstock points out, it is the only objective test available to compare between different manufacturers.

It should also be pointed out that Woodstock does not make ridiculous claims regarding heating capabilities (based on their own "testing") that nearly every other manufacturer does.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I have to go back through EPA method 28, that is used for the testing, but as many times as I have read it my old tired mind does not remember anything in it about measuring BTU output.

I'm really curious to read through it too. I would just point out that nearly every manufacturer does list EPA output. Then, they all roughly double it for cord wood output (usually based on their own "testing"). So, it sure does appear that the EPA does monitor output.

I think a lot of people are missing the big picture here. Woodstock took their stove in for testing to an independent lab, as required by law (unless you make the Elm). They got back some fantastic numbers. They then chose to use those fantastic numbers for marketing their new product. I'm pretty darn sure we would all do the exact same thing and I don't see what is dishonest about it. These are not numbers that were determined by Woodstock. It is the results of a report they received from an independent lab. Certainly, the EPA tests are not that great in determining real world heating capabilities. But, as Woodstock points out, it is the only objective test available to compare between different manufacturers.

It should also be pointed out that Woodstock does not make ridiculous claims regarding heating capabilities (based on their own "testing") that nearly every other manufacturer does.

It should also be pointed out that the left off they Defiant that has lower emission numbers than the Woodstock stoves and the Blaze King model line.

 

[Highbeam]

Kind of odd that the hearthstone mansfield makes so many more btus than the equinox. You can throw out all the testing misunderstandings when you have two stoves from the same company, one much bigger than the other, and the smaller one makes more heat.

BS on the chart. No way my Heritage makes more heat than an F600.

 

[Waulie]

It should also be pointed out that the left off the Defiant that has lower emission numbers than the Woodstock stoves and the Blaze King model line.

Yes, it should!

BK Princess: 40,000 BTU; 2.42 gph; 82.5% efficient
VC Defiant: ????? BTU (couldn't find the EPA listing on their website); 1.1 gph; 84% efficient

I can't open the pdf on EPA's website to get the Defiant high burn number, either.

I'm not sure why WS didn't include those stoves, it doesn't seem to change anything. I;m also not trying to pretend that there isn't a marketing angle to what they posted. I only wanted to point out that it is all factual and based on objective testing.

 

[Waulie]

Kind of odd that the hearthstone mansfield makes so many more btus than the equinox. You can throw out all the testing misunderstandings when you have two stoves from the same company, one much bigger than the other, and the smaller one makes more heat.

The chart is based on test results from independent labs. The chart is not BS as in made up numbers. The problem is that the EPA tests are not really showing which stove "throws more heat" in the real world. Don't worry, I'm sure the Equinox will throw more heat than the Mansfield when full of cordwood. You can't throw out the testing misunderstandings because the tests are the tests. It is a specific amount of a specific kind of wood with the draft full open. That is all it is. All stoves (even from the same manufacturer) have different thermal mass, different air controls, etc.

I'm not saying the EPA tests are a great indicator. I'm just surprised that so many are "calling BS" on Woodstock for posting information obtained from an independant lab that they had to obtain by law.