Check Out These Lopi Efficiencies

[Todd]

Wow! The Leyden at 87%, It's going to be interesting what other manufactures come up with and how they perform these tests to qualify for the tax rebate.
(broken link removed to http://www.lopistoves.com/taxcredits/)

 

[begreen]

Yes, I thought it interesting that they were claiming the Leyden was more efficient than their best pellet stove.

 

[TKeller]

I was at the Lopi dealer last Saturday and also asked about whether Lopi was saying their stoves meet the efficiency rating to get the tax credits. He said absolutely, no problem. Unfortunately, I bought my freedom insert last november. S##ks. I am sure the lopi executives, marketers, accountants, and their lawyers had a meeting of the minds and said something like "it is worth the risk, we have so much to gain if we can push this over the top. Then , the engineers were consulted and told to come up with the wording and data to back it up. Anyway, the lopi is a good stove but not overly impressive compared to what I had. Their efficiencies might be okay but they could stand to do some tweaking in other areas in my opinion. Tony

 

[Todd]

Kind a funny how the Leyden was 70% when it first came out and now it jumps up to 87.4% for the tax rebate. Quite a difference, but it could just be a different testing method too.

 

[3fordasho]

Kind a funny how the Leyden was 70% when it first came out and now it jumps up to 87.4% for the tax rebate. Quite a difference, but it could just be a different testing method too.

Woodstock mentioned a 91.x% efficiency number when I ordered my second Fireview last week.

 

[Todd]

Kind a funny how the Leyden was 70% when it first came out and now it jumps up to 87.4% for the tax rebate. Quite a difference, but it could just be a different testing method too.

Woodstock mentioned a 91.x% efficiency number when I ordered my second Fireview last week.

Holy crapola! :bug: How can this be, there has to be enough heat left over for chimney draft. And Woodstock is doing an upgrade this year to increase efficiency?

 

[BrotherBart]

They are getting so efficient that soon there will be more wood in the stove in the morning than you put in it the night before. :coolsmirk:

 

[Pagey]

They are getting so efficient that soon there will be more wood in the stove in the morning than you put in it the night before. :coolsmirk:

Yes, this plz. Oh, and it should fetch me a beer when I get low. ;-)

 

[Hogwildz]

They are getting so efficient that soon there will be more wood in the stove in the morning than you put in it the night before. :coolsmirk:

Hell I got that beat. One lil glowing rod lasts 10 yrs. And if I lose power, it lights up the room too!

 

[karl]

If they were smart. The manufactuers would make some sort of bio brick type product that would push all these stoves into the 75% range, so they would qualify for the tax credit.

 

[thechimneysweep]

How can this be, there has to be enough heat left over for chimney draft.

You've described one difference between North American "High Heat Value" testing and European "Low Heat Value" testing. In Low Heat Value testing, a portion of the heat value of the test load is considered unavailable for transmission to the room, because it is needed to maintain chimney updraft and to prevent creosote condensation. Since this heat value is out of the picture from the get-go, the stove being tested isn't penalized for not delivering it.

The IRS is expected to approve Low Heat Value testing within a few days, for purposes of the 30% tax credit. Very soon thereafter, you'll see an industry-wide barrage of higher efficiency numbers for wood stoves similar to those published by Travis Industries.

And get used to the new numbers. It is expected by every hearth product industry member I've spoken to that Low Heat Value testing will remain the new North American testing standard after the tax credit period expires.

 

[Todd]

How can this be, there has to be enough heat left over for chimney draft.

You've described one difference between North American "High Heat Value" testing and European "Low Heat Value" testing. In Low Heat Value testing, a portion of the heat value of the test load is considered unavailable for transmission to the room, because it is needed to maintain chimney updraft and to prevent creosote condensation. Since this heat value is out of the picture from the get-go, the stove being tested isn't penalized for not delivering it.

The IRS is expected to approve Low Heat Value testing within a few days, for purposes of the 30% tax credit. Very soon thereafter, you'll see an industry-wide barrage of higher efficiency numbers for wood stoves similar to those published by Travis Industries.

And get used to the new numbers. It is expected by every hearth product industry member I've spoken to that Low Heat Value testing will remain the new North American testing standard after the tax credit period expires.

Great, more confusion and unrealistic numbers.

 

[R&D Guy]

I wonder if they meant 78.4 or 77.4 for the Leyden seeing how all the other stoves are in the 70's.

 

[webbie]

Sounds like manna from heaven. You can now count heat going up the stack as the efficiency......

Sorta like saying the heat my car leaves along the road is part of it's efficiency.

 

[Jags]

Thanks Tom. Once again, you have shed light on a confusing issue.

I have to agree with Craig, how the heck can "waist" be counted as efficiency?? Hey, I'm all for the tax credit and all, but why does the industry have to play numbers games to get it?

Can we count ash as a usable by product and increase the efficiency even more?

 

[northwinds]

Can we count ash as a usable by product and increase the efficiency even more?

We'll get that stove above 100% efficiency yet.

 

[webbie]

Well, it's not really the industry that is doing it - they came up with this arbitrary number (75%), which using a calorimeter room and other tests would be virtually impossible for any stove to meet. How they got that number of 75 is beyond me. Maybe they had to satisfy an egghead or a constituency. I think they should have simply said meets all EPA specs. It would have achieved the same results....getting more efficient and cleaner stoves out there to replace the older ones, and getting some news ones out.

 

[Jags]

I think they should have simply said meets all EPA specs. It would have achieved the same results....

That makes WAY too much sense. It'll never happen. :smirk:

 

[myzamboni]

I think they should have simply said meets all EPA specs. It would have achieved the same results....

That makes WAY too much sense. It'll never happen. :smirk:

It'll never happen because putting numbers allows a 'short for Richard' measuring contest.