EPA output rating--Cape Cod vs. PH.

[Woody Stover]

EPA sez:

PH 73K BTU/hr.
Cod 39.5K BTU

Heck, they even rate the Fireview at 43K. Hard to believe the Cod (with or without blower) doesn't out-heat the Fv. What gives? Maybe the convection of the Cod gives more real-world BTUs?

 

[Huntindog1]

The brochure says its maximum output for the Lopi Cape Cod is 86K BTU/HR

Woodstock Progress Hybrid 2.7 cu ft fire box
Lopi Cape Cod Hybrid 3.0 cu ft fire box

So those numbers make sense.

(broken link removed to http://lopistoves.com/TravisDocs/98800547.pdf)

 

[Woody Stover]

The brochure says its maximum output for the Lopi Cape Cod is 86K BTU/HR

Just wondering about the EPA numbers, as I have a few times in the past.
Woodstock site is apparently down right now, so I can't see what they claim....I thought it was in excess of 100K, IIRC. Pretty sure they claim 55K for the Fv.

 

[Highbeam]

I think even the BK line is plagued with this weird output trick. EPA output is really low and in the brochure it is really high.

I don't know. These are the types of things that make us stove people ignore ratings and look at firebox size instead.

 

[Huntindog1]

Well EPA testing is done with crappy wood worst case scenario most like likely at lower settings. They dont want the stove polluting at worst case scenario.

Maximum numbers are most likely calculated with some really good wood at high output settings.

 

[Huntindog1]

highbeam, what really makes me crazy about ratings is how grams of particulates emissions dont follow efficiency ratings. You can have a stove with really
low Grams emissions but have poor efficiency numbers. Or vica versa. I think air flows and turbulance and maybe head room in the stove play a part in how much ash stays stirred up in the exhaust path. Which means more particulates getting up the flue than need be.

 

[begreen]

Well EPA testing is done with crappy wood worst case scenario most like likely at lower settings. They dont want the stove polluting at worst case scenario.

Maximum numbers are most likely calculated with some really good wood at high output settings.

The tests are done with dried doug fir lumber. There are much worse case burning scenarios, but they are going for repeatable test results.

 

[rideau]

BK brochure I read said heat output was high IF you kept the firebox full by reloading frequently. So that is not in contrast to EPA testing. Woodstock does rate the FV at 55 with hardwood, the PH over 80 with hardwood. Obviously, there is hardwood and there is HARDWOOD. Loaded with Ironwood or white oak your BTUs are going to be a lot more than loaded with maple or beech.

I'm rather shocked the EPA rating on the Cape Cod is so low, and don't know how you'd go from that rating to 86,000. You'd need more than double the output of Doug Fir. If I remember correctly Doug Fir is 26 or 28,000,000 BTU/cord on average, not that much lower than a lot of hardwood, and in keeping with the difference between Woodstock's EPA rating and hardwood self tested rating (FV 43K EPA, 55K Hardwood/Woodstock; PH 73K EPA, over 80K Woodstock/hardwood.).

In real life, with long burning cycles, there is that much difference between the output of the FV and the PH.

 

[Woody Stover]

I don't think anyone has run both stoves in the same setting, but I think webby might be about ready to try out another stove.

 

[Todd]

I'd rather know what the low-med output is and how long it will maintain or burn. Nobody burns their stove at full throttle except at the beginning of a reload or start up. Most burn at a low steady output.

 

[rideau]

I agree, Todd, except for those of us who live in a climate where we can experience 30 below with an additional 30 degrees of wind chill. On those days the difference between the ability to burn at 55K (fireview)and 80K(progress hybrid) makes all the difference in the world. If the PH is that much more versatile than the Cape Cod, its hugely important for those in climates that are bitterly cold several times a year.

 

[begreen]

In the real world, the CapeCod seems to hold it's own pretty well. It does a nice slow, low burn. webby's 16 hr burn times in April are excellent.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/lopi-cape-cod.108572/#post-1425853

And on the opposite side of warmth, it heated Charger's 2900 sq ft home last winter very well at a lot higher temp than I heat our house at.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/the-cape-cod-is-here.100342/page-2#post-129453

 

[Machria]

highbeam, what really makes me crazy about ratings is how grams of particulates emissions dont follow efficiency ratings. You can have a stove with really
low Grams emissions but have poor efficiency numbers. Or vica versa. I think air flows and turbulance and maybe head room in the stove play a part in how much ash stays stirred up in the exhaust path. Which means more particulates getting up the flue than need be.

Efficiency ratings and emmisions have nothing to do with each other, and will not have much influence on each other. You can have a high rating, with bad emmisions, and vice versa. The efficiency is is rating how efficiently the stove puts heat into the room, rather than into the atmosphere. The emmisions tell you how much particulate (pollution) the stove puts into the air. You can have a stove burn everything up and have no emmisions, yet still blast all that heat up the chimney and out to your neighborhood, instead of in your house. That would be a low emmisions stove, but with poor efficiency. on the other hand you could have a stove that has poor emmisions which puts out tons of ash and gasses into the chimeny. However, it catches all the heat it generates and radiates/convects it all into the room instead of up the chmney. That would be high efficiency stove, with poor emmisions.

The one thing which is important to note with regard to the EPA #'s is, they really don't care about the effienciency's of the stoves OR the outputs of the stoves so much. All they care about is the emmisions. So they rate them for output just because they have to determine a baseline in order to help calculate an emmisions #. But the number they are really testing for, and care about is the emmissions #.

What I think should become a standard in the industry is how BK and Woodstock show there ratings in their specs... that is, show the RANGE of burn rates, along with expected burn times for each. This way consumers know hoe much heat they can get for how long on both really cold days (full blast) and on warm days(low and slow). For example:
LOW: 10k BTU's for 16 hours
HIGH: 76k BTU's for 6 hours

We talked about EPA ratings, outputs, efficiencies.... for 4+ pages last year in the Progress Hybrid performance thread. Do a search and read thru it, lots of great info in there and opposing opinions (you get to see both sides of the arguments.... of course, mine is the only one that is right! ).

 

[Highbeam]

Good post mac.

My BK is the #2 most efficient stove but is actually pretty dirty. Just as some non-cats put up very impressive low emissions numbers.