Gulland knows his stuff, but he's not a god.
He's NOT?!?!?! Oh the horror! :bug:
Have you ever read his OAK article?<.
Yep. Actually attended a lecture sponsored by Jotul in 2001 at a college in Biddeford, Me, where he presented his evidence against OAKs.
He actually had a video filmed by a consumer who was burning a Regency free-stander, & when the wind blew in a certasin direction, the flames in the firebox were extinguished. The vacuum effect of the wind caused the air flow in the OAK to reverse & there wasn't enuff O2 to feed the combustion process...
Once the wind died, the fire reignited...It looked like there was an explosion insuide the stove...
Of course this could have been done with smoke (haha) & mirrors or some sophisticated CGI, but it sure looked real to me.
also says it would be impossible for anyone other than a company with a giant R & D department to design an efficient stove, while heater masons(and before then, regular folks) have been building masonry heaters that far outperform any conventional stove in terms of efficiency for a very long time.
No doubt. There's also a bunch of Einsteins who have tried the same & are no longer with us... 8-/
far as wood being too dry, it won't be unless it's kiln dried or sat in a desert, and even then it would be dependent on the stove if the stove couldn't "provide enough air" to burn the wood properly. It's still FAR better than wood that isn't dry enough. Also this is precisely what Gulland says
That's all I was getting at. Wood CAN be too dry, albeit due to extreme circumstances, but it IS possible...
I'll go hide in my hole now...
Maybe later I can find another thread to chime in on in order to stir up the flames...