In response to Sugars question on Europas gasification techniques.

[MasterOfFire]

Great thanks, what do you mean it doesn't appear to be anymore efficient than any other pellet stove. What does it mean than if it is certified instead of compliant? I was on the epa web site and it shows it at 80 something percent efficient vs the dellpoint at 86 does that mean that?
thanks

 

[MCPO]

Great thanks, what do you mean it doesn't appear to be anymore efficient than any other pellet stove. What does it mean than if it is certified instead of compliant? I was on the epa web site and it shows it at 80 something percent efficient vs the dellpoint at 86 does that mean that?
thanks

With regards to your second question as best as I know is that most pellet stoves are exempt from EPA certification since most if not all of them fall well below the minimum emissions which is 7.5 grams per hr for non cat and 4.1 for cat stoves.
Pellet stoves makers can of course request that their pellet stove be tested to meet the qualifications for EPA certification standards and therefore be listed as EPA certified.
Again, being EPA certified doesn`t mean anything with regards to net efficiency. A pellet stove with the lowest emissions output having a so-so heat exchanger can be less efficient than one with higher emissions and a good heat exchanger.
Personally I`m impressed with the Dell Point technology myself but be aware there are other pellet stoves that meet or exceed their low emission output. Check out this list below:

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/RES/tax/docs/RETC_PelletStoves.pdf

 

[ADVA]

You light it with gel.
I was such a doubter 3 years ago when I was introduced to this stove when I felt the heat on setting 3 that I had to run my own feed rate test. The heat coming out felt like a 40K btu stove on high. I SWORE to Claude Lapoint that the stove had to be using 4-5 lbs per hour to make that much heat. Sure enough, on setting 3, gobs of heat and 19.5 hours on a 40lb bag.

I have a HARMAN Advance.
Great stove.
What would you estimate in percentage savings &/or pellet consumption.
I am currently heating my shop with the Harman.

However I need a stove that I do not have to light.
Is this company considering the possible incorporation of an igniter for the Europa?

 

[Fsappo]

I would estimage a fuel savings of 30-40% There is no electronic ignition in this stove and they do not plan on adding one. It greatly increases the start up time and the time burning at less than peak performace. To reach such ultra high efficiencies, the sacrifice is auto ignite. When working in thermostat mode the stove cycles between heat settings.

 

[BDPVT]

I would estimage a fuel savings of 30-40% There is no electronic ignition in this stove and they do not plan on adding one. It greatly increases the start up time and the time burning at less than peak performace. To reach such ultra high efficiencies, the sacrifice is auto ignite. When working in thermostat mode the stove cycles between heat settings.

Franks, where do you get your estimate of 30-40% fuel savings from? Maybe true when compared to a non-cat wood stove! The Europa is rated by the manufacturer at 86% net efficiency, but any EPA certified pellet stove is at least 78% net efficiency. Many pellet stoves have been tested at over 80%. Your estimate defies logic and seems to go beyond scientific fact. If true, it would revolutionize the way we use energy. Imagine if we all could save 30-40% on our heating costs. Show me some hard evidence and I will be the first in line with a check in hand.

 

[Fsappo]

If you look at the net heat loss on the Europa compared to a typical stove, the math shows it (14% heat loss for Europa compared to 55% on typical combustion pellet stoves) Not being able to run a true side by side test and waiting for Mr Webmaster to accept our challenge of giving him a free stove to test in a lab of his choosing, I go by customer feedback. Replaced a Bixby with a Europa and the customer saved about 2 tons of fuel per year and same results with a customer swapping out a Magnum Countryside.

Claude, the inventor says it's all there in black and white, the fuel savings. It all looks like numbers and jargon to me. So aside from what I see in the field and in my showroom, I can only guestimate.

We need someone that has used and logged fuel usage on a stove for the past few years to swap out with a Europa and test the usage difference, or run some side by side tests.

I think the proof needs to be in the net result to the homeowner..not in a paper filled with funny symbols.

What I proposed a number of times and probably further up in this thread is taking a Europa, and any other the other typical combustion pellet stoves and put them in a 3-4000 square foot building that is divided in half. Run both stoves on thermostats set at 70 for a month and see how much each stove burns. How else can you get a real side by side comparison?

I just dont have an empty facility that large that I could build a wall down the middle of. I'm all for other ideas.

So until then, BDPVT the hard proof will have to wait. I can feel comfortable making this claim to my customers, because the ones who did replace older stoves saw the fuel savings and the ones who are starting from scratch are using much less pellets than I would normally claim they would need. For example:
A customer wants to buy a 45,000 Btu Regency GF55 to heat 1500 square feet and asks how many pellets they would need. I would tell them maybe 4-5 tons depending on the X factors. Same situation and someone wants to buy a Europa and asks how many pellets they would need..I'll tell them 2-3 tons. I have yet to sell a Europa to a customer who has used more than 3 tons and have quite a few folks heating 1500-2000 sf.

Like you, I would like to see a true side by side comparison. Claude will donate a stove to the cause, we just need the proper facility and other stoves to compare it to.

What are you currently using, heating how much area, for how many years and how much fuel do you average per year? You may be a good candidate, but I would trust Webby more. I've known him for 25+ years. Rumor has it, he used to change my diapers.

 

[BDPVT]

Franks, this argument seems like it will never end LOL ! I must warn you that some years ago I worked for Omni Enviromental and probably understand the "funny numbers" as well as anyone. During my time there, we tested numerous pellet stoves for EPA certification. Many of those stoves are still on the market today. There are a lot of crazy numbers flying around here but the most meaningful number for the consumer is overall net efficiency. Net efficiency is the amount of heat energy transferred to the room compared to the amount contained in the fuel. Simply stated , it's how much fuel can you expect to use to heat a given space. For example, the Europa has 34000 BTU's input at 4lbs/hour and 86%net efficiency=29,240BTU's output. The Enviro inputs 35,000 BTU's at 4.2lbs/ hour at 83.5% net efficiency= 29,225 BTU's output. So please explain how the Europa uses 30-40% less fuel to obtain a similar output than the Enviro Empress? It just doesn't add up.
I have looked at all the data you have supplied and even reviewed the Paromax patent looking for some miracle. Granted the Europa is an innovative design, but bottom line is that it seems to be only slightly more efficient than a conventional 35:1 EPA certified pellet stove.

 

[ADVA]

I would estimage a fuel savings of 30-40% There is no electronic ignition in this stove and they do not plan on adding one. It greatly increases the start up time and the time burning at less than peak performace. To reach such ultra high efficiencies, the sacrifice is auto ignite. When working in thermostat mode the stove cycles between heat settings.

Frank,
Is the 30-40% savings on a typical old Pellet Stove?
I believe the HARMAN Advance is 78%-(on low side).
So say 80%.
With the Europa at 95% respectively. Gives about a savings of 18.8%.
Pretty impressive & if the stove would cycle to keep the thermostat temp.
That is great-"ONLY IF"-it never shuts down unless runs out of Pellets.

I cannot be bothered with the headache of I am away & snowed in & my stove goes out & the pipes freeze.
Because the stove would not hold the minimum burn rate even if temp in the house went above the thermostat setting.

If it has this feature please let me know & I will then start shopping around.

I believe the way in which the Europa is tested is for an overall efficiency.
I see it draws 80 Watts I believe.
Please confirm.

My HARMAN Advance "SAYS" it draws 275 Watts.
I tested it on a "KILAWATT-EZ METER" & it only draws 109W-blower on high & 153W- Watts blower on high & Auger running.
Blower on low-74W. Blower on low & Auger running-108W.
So "IF" the Advance was given an overall rating based upon the 275 Watts.
It should be revised & would thereby greatly increase its efficiency rating.

However there may be a transformer drawing an unspecified number of Watts the KILAWATT-EZ meter does not pick up.
I do not know all these facts...
But I would like to know...

 

[Fsappo]

No warning needed, my friend. In fact, you should be able to help me with this. What I see is the end results. Have you ever seen the Europa in person? What you should do is stop out to NY and watch what it does on 2 lbs per hour. Now, if the enviro has a 55% heat loss, what basis do they have for listing a 83.5 net efficiency? Thats the part that I don't get. Claude is measuring his "net" based on whats not going out the vent. If it's not going out the vent, it needs to go someplace, right? Did I ever email you the documentation of comparisons so you can view it? I will if you PM me your email address. Maybe you can decipher it and explain it better here.

You and no one else have ever commented on the "real life results" test. Wouldnt you agree that if I am seeing these results in the field, that it would warrant doing a side by side comparison as I described in my previous post? It's almost as if folks are nervous about learning the truth. No one has even said "well, sure Frank, we should compare them side by side in a contest of heat vs fuel used, but I dont want to do it"

How else can we show ourselves what these stoves really heat based on LBs per hour of fuel? It's like giving a MPG rating on a car based on lab tests without putting x gallons in and driving it to prove what the lab says.

I should probably push for a government grant to do the study. Hell, they spend millions studying woodpecker populations, why not thru a mill my way to see if there is a way we could use 30% less biomass as a country..or planet?

Please, lets keep the dialogue open, I'm hoping for a way to prove/disprove the technology instead of answering "prove it" posts. My customers can't all be fibbing to me..or could they?

 

[ADVA]

How else can we show ourselves what these stoves really heat based on LBs per hour of fuel? It's like giving a MPG rating on a car based on lab tests without putting x gallons in and driving it to prove what the lab says.

I should probably push for a government grant to do the study. Hell, they spend millions studying woodpecker populations, why not thru a mill my way to see if there is a way we could use 30% less biomass as a country..or planet?

Please, lets keep the dialogue open, I'm hoping for a way to prove/disprove the technology instead of answering "prove it" posts. My customers can't all be fibbing to me..or could they?

How about finding someone with a large walk in freezer.
Make sure the walk in freezer is in a temperature controlled room.
Set the temp to a constant for every stove you put in there.
Say 10 degrees.
Then put each stove in there & set it for say 80 degrees connected to a thermometer/embedded in a block of epoxy embedded/flush in the floor in a corner.
Better yet have 4-one in each corner.
Fill the hopper up set the burn rate always say to 4lbs per hour for each stove tested.
See how much fuel it burns up to heat the walk in fridge from 10-80 degrees-(after each thermometer reached the 80 degree mark.
Then test each stove at say 2lbs per hour.

However you would have to cross out the variables.
1-Length/Diameter of stove exhaust pipe.
2-Length/Diameter of stove inlet pipe.
3-Pellet/Fuel consistancy.
Maybe you could get a real consistant product that has low ash & burns well in all stoves.
Buy a few tons.
Mix every bag together in a say a cement mixer for a few turns.
Sift out the fines.
4-?-unknown...
5-?-unknown...
6-?-unknown...


Wait a few days letting the walk in freezer cool the insulation/floor etc. back to it's constant temp at 10 degrees before testing the next stove.
Then repeat the test in backwards sequence of stove tested.

BTW-
The above test method is Len B's Idea.
If need be can be protected under my corporation.
Dated the post date & I have first rights to being partners for a grant or patent etc.

 

[BDPVT]

Franks, I completely agree that any new technology that saves 30-40% energy would be big news. But you seem to be the only guy making such claims. Odd that the energy industry and media are not all over this. Even the Paromax web site does not support your claim. See below:

Type of Stove
Net Efficiency (%)
Conventional wood stove
54%
Catalytic wood stove
68%
Non-certified pellet stove
33.4% to 70.5%
Paromax Certified pellet stove
86%
Masonary heater
54% to 65%

According to Paromax, the 30-40% gain is compared to non-cat wood stoves. As I have stated earlier, compare apples to apples and the differences between the Europa and any other EPA Certified pellet stove is only 2-6%.... conveniently left off their list. You made the claim so I think you have a responsibility to prove it.
Sorry Franks, but I have many years of experience testing and evaluating this kind of stuff and those are the facts as I see them.

 

[BDPVT]

Franks, I completely agree that any new technology that saves 30-40% energy would be big news. But you seem to be the only guy making such claims. Odd that the energy industry and media are not all over this. Even the Paromax web site does not support your claim. See below:

Type of Stove
Net Efficiency (%)
Conventional wood stove
54%
Catalytic wood stove
68%
Non-certified pellet stove
33.4% to 70.5%
Paromax Certified pellet stove
86%
Masonary heater
54% to 65%

According to Paromax, the 30-40% gain is compared to non-cat wood stoves. As I have stated earlier, compare apples to apples and the differences between the Europa and any other EPA Certified pellet stove is only 2-6%.... conveniently left off their list. You made the claim so I think you have a responsibility to prove it.
Sorry Franks, but I have many years of experience testing and evaluating this kind of stuff and those are the facts as I see them.

 

[summit]

I also think that heat exchanger surface area must have alot to do w/ overall eff%'s... The Europas we had had a single row of (6 ithink) tubes, not the most efficient exchanger, although better than the flat steel panel many big box pellet stoves have. Its all well and good to gas off unburned fumes, have a 25 minute start up, whatever, but unless you are transferring that heat OUT, it all goes out the stack. Check out the Harman heat exchanger system, or even on on a cumberland pellet unit, the enviro maxx has a huge heat exchanger as well... thats the kinda thing that means $ savings per lb burned.

 

[BDPVT]

I also think that heat exchanger surface area must have alot to do w/ overall eff%'s... The Europas we had had a single row of (6 ithink) tubes, not the most efficient exchanger, although better than the flat steel panel many big box pellet stoves have. Its all well and good to gas off unburned fumes, have a 25 minute start up, whatever, but unless you are transferring that heat OUT, it all goes out the stack. Check out the Harman heat exchanger system, or even on on a cumberland pellet unit, the enviro maxx has a huge heat exchanger as well... thats the kinda thing that means $ savings per lb burned.

Summit, you hit the nail right on the head. Any EPA Certified pellet stove is going to have a very efficient combustion system by definition. Regardless of how the heat is made, its a matter of what happens to that heat after it's made that really counts. Franks may argue that the 10:1 air fuel ratio of the Europa makes a difference, but I believe it is the temperature of the combustion gas and how effective the heat exchanger is at extracting that heat that determines net efficiency.There are many models and types of heat exchangers, but they essentially work based on the laws of thermodynamics. One of those laws states that when an object is heated, the heat energy contained within that object will diffuse outward to the surrounding environment, until the heat energy in the object and in the environment have reached equilibrium. Most EPA Certified pellet stove have combustion efficiencies over 97%. In other words, they extract nearly 100% of BTU's available from the fuel. In order to support Franks' claim, the Europa would need to produce 30-40% more BTU's from an equal amount of fuel. That would defy the laws of physics. The Europa may be a fine stove, but it is not a miracle.

 

[Fsappo]

Franks, I completely agree that any new technology that saves 30-40% energy would be big news. But you seem to be the only guy making such claims. Odd that the energy industry and media are not all over this. Even the Paromax web site does not support your claim. See below:

Type of Stove
Net Efficiency (%)
Conventional wood stove
54%
Catalytic wood stove
68%
Non-certified pellet stove
33.4% to 70.5%
Paromax Certified pellet stove
86%
Masonary heater
54% to 65%

According to Paromax, the 30-40% gain is compared to non-cat wood stoves. As I have stated earlier, compare apples to apples and the differences between the Europa and any other EPA Certified pellet stove is only 2-6%.... conveniently left off their list. You made the claim so I think you have a responsibility to prove it.
Sorry Franks, but I have many years of experience testing and evaluating this kind of stuff and those are the facts as I see them.

Once again, you failed to address my idea of a real life test. It almost seems that you may be trying to stifle the idea of getting this technology brought to the publics attention. Also, their claim of net efficiency of a non epa pellet stove shows a range of 33-70% The stove tested that Claude used for a comparison above showed a tremendous heat loss. You also did not address where that heat not lost ends up going. I also see you didnt PM me with your email address so you could discuss this directly with the person who invented the stove..because of these tendencies, I'm not sure what your real intent is on this debate.

But enough of that..I actually see a party who posted above that is interested in getting to the truth of real world results in using the walk in freezers

Hadvance. This legal sounding jargon:
"BTW-The above test method is Len B’s Idea.
If need be can be protected under my corporation.
Dated the post date & I have first rights to being partners for a grant or patent etc. "

I'm not too sure what it means, but I like the idea that you are interested in proving these claims based on real life performance. The walk in freezer idea would be a good one, aside from having to penetrate a wall/ceiling for the venting, which may render the freezer unusable without expensive repairs. It would allow us to run this test at any time of the year, instead of waiting until the next heating season.

Where is your facility located? If the amount of the grant would cover the cost of a large walk in freezer, that may make the venting a non issue.

I have never applied for a grant, but I guess I can look into it. I should also see if Claude wants to do some of the legwork on this, since he has the most to gain. I just am involved because I'm a believer in the technology and I sell the stoves to a small market. If Claude can prove the real life results instead of just a bunch of numbers on paper, this could end up increasing his distribution to a world wide clientel.

Again, I will send this thread to Claude and see what he has to say about it. Also, waiting for Craig (webmaster) to see if he has any suggestions.

 

[BDPVT]

Franks, I completely agree that any new technology that saves 30-40% energy would be big news. But you seem to be the only guy making such claims. Odd that the energy industry and media are not all over this. Even the Paromax web site does not support your claim. See below:

Type of Stove
Net Efficiency (%)
Conventional wood stove
54%
Catalytic wood stove
68%
Non-certified pellet stove
33.4% to 70.5%
Paromax Certified pellet stove
86%
Masonary heater
54% to 65%

According to Paromax, the 30-40% gain is compared to non-cat wood stoves. As I have stated earlier, compare apples to apples and the differences between the Europa and any other EPA Certified pellet stove is only 2-6%.... conveniently left off their list. You made the claim so I think you have a responsibility to prove it.
Sorry Franks, but I have many years of experience testing and evaluating this kind of stuff and those are the facts as I see them.

Once again, you failed to address my idea of a real life test. It almost seems that you may be trying to stifle the idea of getting this technology brought to the publics attention. Also, their claim of net efficiency of a non epa pellet stove shows a range of 33-70% The stove tested that Claude used for a comparison above showed a tremendous heat loss. You also did not address where that heat not lost ends up going. I also see you didnt PM me with your email address so you could discuss this directly with the person who invented the stove..because of these tendencies, I'm not sure what your real intent is on this debate.

But enough of that..I actually see a party who posted above that is interested in getting to the truth of real world results in using the walk in freezers

Hadvance. This legal sounding jargon:
"BTW-The above test method is Len B’s Idea.
If need be can be protected under my corporation.
Dated the post date & I have first rights to being partners for a grant or patent etc. "

I'm not too sure what it means, but I like the idea that you are interested in proving these claims based on real life performance. The walk in freezer idea would be a good one, aside from having to penetrate a wall/ceiling for the venting, which may render the freezer unusable without expensive repairs. It would allow us to run this test at any time of the year, instead of waiting until the next heating season.

Where is your facility located? If the amount of the grant would cover the cost of a large walk in freezer, that may make the venting a non issue.

I have never applied for a grant, but I guess I can look into it. I should also see if Claude wants to do some of the legwork on this, since he has the most to gain. I just am involved because I'm a believer in the technology and I sell the stoves to a small market. If Claude can prove the real life results instead of just a bunch of numbers on paper, this could end up increasing his distribution to a world wide clientel.

Again, I will send this thread to Claude and see what he has to say about it. Also, waiting for Craig (webmaster) to see if he has any suggestions.

Franks, once again you insist on comparing some mysterious unnamed non-EPA pellet stove to the Europa. I am offended that you would question my motives. After all, you are a salesman who seems to be intentionaly misleading your customers! Franks, I have been involved in biomass research and development for the past 35yrs and have worked on projects around the country to install systems that use biomass fuel to produce heat and/or electricity in schools, communities, colleges, businesses, utilities, and government agencies. We have conducted numerous independent and impartial feasibility studies and routine due diligence on equipment vendors and their technology claims. There are a number of vendors in this emerging industry and as many claims to their technology’s capabilities. My only motivation is to cut through the marketing hype and determine a system’s actual capabilities. That "bunch of numbers on paper" are the real results and the facts don't lie. Perhaps you and Claude should get your stories straight.

 

[Fsappo]

We've moved beyond what you claim and what I claim. There are legal reasons why the mystery stove remains unnamed. It made by one of the top 5 largest biomass manufacturers in North America. The numbers on paper show a huge difference in heat loss. (again heat loss is not addressed) You can monitor the thread and see what the results are of any actual tests are. That's the next step. Apply what happens in a lab to what happens in real life. We want to see what 14% heat loss does compared to 30-60% heat loss.

To the rest of you who are interested, I'm just a guy managing a fireplace shop. I've been trying to find the location/means to run a test that would prove to be unbiased. I'll keep pushing Claude on this. He tells me over and over that his stoves use 30-40% less fuel to get the same heat. I've seen these results from my clients. He is the one that should pony up to prove it to the rest of the public.

For anyone truly interested in the technology, you can PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with Claude and keep you in the email loops as far as our conversations go.

Perhaps someone else with 35 years of biomass R&D may have a suggestion on what kind of facility would run these kinds of tests?

 

[BDPVT]

We've moved beyond what you claim and what I claim. There are legal reasons why the mystery stove remains unnamed. It made by one of the top 5 largest biomass manufacturers in North America. The numbers on paper show a huge difference in heat loss. (again heat loss is not addressed) You can monitor the thread and see what the results are of any actual tests are. That's the next step. Apply what happens in a lab to what happens in real life. We want to see what 14% heat loss does compared to 30-60% heat loss.

To the rest of you who are interested, I'm just a guy managing a fireplace shop. I've been trying to find the location/means to run a test that would prove to be unbiased. I'll keep pushing Claude on this. He tells me over and over that his stoves use 30-40% less fuel to get the same heat. I've seen these results from my clients. He is the one that should pony up to prove it to the rest of the public.

For anyone truly interested in the technology, you can PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with Claude and keep you in the email loops as far as our conversations go.

Perhaps someone else with 35 years of biomass R&D may have a suggestion on what kind of facility would run these kinds of tests?

Franks, I think your hearts in the right place but you are in way over your head on this one. In my opinion, the only meaningful comparative tests should be done in a independent lab where the variables can be controlled. All the necessary tests have already been done by Paromax. You have repeatedly either misquoted or misinterpreted the results. How is a comparison to a low efficiency non- certified pellet stove even valid? If it was even remotely possible use 30-40% less fuel to get the same heat compared to a truly competitive product, wouldn't it be in Claude's best interest to prove it and promote this remarkable breakthrough? Claude has remained strangely silent, just a brief mention on his website "Burns up to 35% less fuel than a typical biomass stove". What the heck is a typical biomass stove? No offence Franks, but doesn't it strike you as odd that he has a stove shop salesman making the pitch?

 

[summit]

if this "newer" europa has any similarity to the old dell point unit, can you still adjust the exhaust fan rates via the control board? I could understand the theory of if, by controlling residence time in the unit of the hot gasses and gassing off via the tall burnpots' "secondary"... but, I don't think we had that much more fuel efficiency with it over any other pellet unit in there. you could get some pretty good temps, but you had to dial it all in right via the board: coupled with the longer start up, and non auto mode, I think whatever fuel efficiency #'s you may have achieved were erased in the long run by the fact it was always burning fuel. To really get things going, tell Claude to put in some more heat exchange surface area, and a faster blower. I know things are a little different, but they still look like the same duck.

 

[Fsappo]

We've moved beyond what you claim and what I claim. There are legal reasons why the mystery stove remains unnamed. It made by one of the top 5 largest biomass manufacturers in North America. The numbers on paper show a huge difference in heat loss. (again heat loss is not addressed) You can monitor the thread and see what the results are of any actual tests are. That's the next step. Apply what happens in a lab to what happens in real life. We want to see what 14% heat loss does compared to 30-60% heat loss.

To the rest of you who are interested, I'm just a guy managing a fireplace shop. I've been trying to find the location/means to run a test that would prove to be unbiased. I'll keep pushing Claude on this. He tells me over and over that his stoves use 30-40% less fuel to get the same heat. I've seen these results from my clients. He is the one that should pony up to prove it to the rest of the public.

For anyone truly interested in the technology, you can PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with Claude and keep you in the email loops as far as our conversations go.

Perhaps someone else with 35 years of biomass R&D may have a suggestion on what kind of facility would run these kinds of tests?

Franks, I think your hearts in the right place but you are in way over your head on this one. In my opinion, the only meaningful comparative tests should be done in a independent lab where the variables can be controlled. All the necessary tests have already been done by Paromax. You have repeatedly either misquoted or misinterpreted the results. How is a comparison to a low efficiency non- certified pellet stove even valid? If it was even remotely possible use 30-40% less fuel to get the same heat compared to a truly competitive product, wouldn't it be in Claude's best interest to prove it and promote this remarkable breakthrough? Claude has remained strangely silent, just a brief mention on his website "Burns up to 35% less fuel than a typical biomass stove". What the heck is a typical biomass stove? No offence Franks, but doesn't it strike you as odd that he has a stove shop salesman making the pitch?

We can surely agree on that point. If you saw the emails I send to Claude, you would see my frustration. I have, on many occasions, showed him how to set up an account on these forums, so he could be part of the dialogue. I have told him many times, he should do some kind of real life testing showing real world results. I keep getting "I'll donate one of our stoves to the cause" and a bunch of stuff about air ratios, heat loss and heat exchangers. I'm an old fashioned type. When I was young and more stupid, my friends and I would talk horsepower, gear ratios in regards to our cars. What do you think ended up happening almost every time we had the chance or when a new guy with a new car showed up? Drag races. So, yeah..for the little bit of a vested interest I have in this in regards to potential income, I seem to be doing a lot of preaching without any real proof, except what I see locally with my clients. I arm wrestle to see who wins, regardless of size. The NFL plays every game, regardless of who should win on paper (I know that is not really the same)

For me, a typical biomass stove is a stove that drops pellets into a tray and blows air thru them.

 

[vvvv]

Install it in a room with an AC connected to a KILL-A-WATT. Burn 5lbs. [or minimal amount] of pellets. Cool the room & read the KILL-A-WATT. Repeat for different model when outdoor conditions are similar.

 

[MCPO]

I`ve always been interested and excited with catalytic / non cat high tech stoves that burn the gases and I`ve had both.
I recall saving maybe 25% on cordwood and during most of the burn cycle there was no visible smoke coming from the chimney . not to mention the absence of creosote. But we are talking pellet stoves here.
The use of this proven technology obviously works well in the Europa but in reality it`s probably better suited for use in cordwood and oil stoves since most stove mfgrs have already developed near maximum combustion efficiencies for pellet burning that seemingly would be difficult if not impossible to significantly improve upon.
What I find as a much more interesting aspect of the Europa stove is the low exhaust volume. (less input air) However this has to be directly related to heat transfer efficiency and the exchanger system itself and there lies the greater differences that separate this stove from a more conventional one. There lies the mystery to me.
The longer startup time, lack of auto ignition, and cost are deal breakers for most folks and is primarily what keeps this stove from widespread acceptance.

 

[Fsappo]

if this "newer" europa has any similarity to the old dell point unit, can you still adjust the exhaust fan rates via the control board? I could understand the theory of if, by controlling residence time in the unit of the hot gasses and gassing off via the tall burnpots' "secondary"... but, I don't think we had that much more fuel efficiency with it over any other pellet unit in there. you could get some pretty good temps, but you had to dial it all in right via the board: coupled with the longer start up, and non auto mode, I think whatever fuel efficiency #'s you may have achieved were erased in the long run by the fact it was always burning fuel. To really get things going, tell Claude to put in some more heat exchange surface area, and a faster blower. I know things are a little different, but they still look like the same duck.

Still can adjust the combustion air with the control board. Your correct as far as having to spend a 20 minute start up cycle to achieve the gasification (maybe not the correct term) but during that start up cycle the stove is still burning at the same efficiency as a typical stove that burns pellets dropped into a tray full of holes. When I do sell these stoves, they are sold to people who will be hooking them up to a thermostat and running them 30 days at a time (only shutting down once a month to empty the ash pan) You do lose a lot of the value if you had the stove turned on and off daily. I talked to Claude about why he doesn't have more heat exchange area or a stronger convection fan. He told me it was part of the "secret" and wouldnt say much more. Secrets are claims are great, but I'm DYING to do some kind of comparison. The world needs to know if there is a simple way to use 30% less biomass. My customers need to know if the savings are NOT 30-40%. Again, I have many of these sold locally and have yet to have a customer use more than 3 tons of pellets, with many of them heating over 1500 square feet. Also a couple of customers who told me that they have saved 2 tons of fuel by swapping out different stoves for the Europa, so my local reputation as an honest GM holds true. But I want the drag race so bad.

I'll offer again, that I am not a tech guru and anyone who is SINCERELY interested in learning more or debating this technology is welcomed to PM me with their email address and I will email them Claudes email so this can be discussed directly without me in the middle dumbing things out.

 

[Fsappo]

I`ve always been interested and excited with catalytic / non cat high tech stoves that burn the gases and I`ve had both.
I recall saving maybe 25% on cordwood and during most of the burn cycle there was no visible smoke coming from the chimney . not to mention the absence of creosote. But we are talking pellet stoves here.
The use of this proven technology obviously works well in the Europa but in reality it`s probably better suited for use in cordwood and oil stoves since most stove mfgrs have already developed near maximum combustion efficiencies for pellet burning that seemingly would be difficult if not impossible to significantly improve upon.
What I find as a much more interesting aspect of the Europa stove is the low exhaust volume. (less input air) However this has to be directly related to heat transfer efficiency and the exchanger system itself and there lies the greater differences that separate this stove from a more conventional one. There lies the mystery to me.
"
"""The longer startup time, lack of auto ignition, and cost are deal breakers for most folks and is primarily what keeps this stove from widespread acceptance.

It's not really a longer startup time from a heat standpoint. I can hit start on my GF-55 auto ignite with a primed auger, walk over to the europa and go thru the gel process and the Europa will be blowing 250+ degree air sometimes before the convection fan starts on the auto ignite stove..also, these Europas are not designed as on/off stoves. Yet, a $4400 stove that does not have auto ignite is still a hard sell. The 12 volt system and standard battery backup helps. The Europa may never be the staple of a hearth shop. I sell 5-10 a year and it makes up for about 10% of my pellet stove sales. Now, take that combustion technology, make it so it could use auto ignite without lowering the efficiency and put a $3999 price tag on it, and I would expect that they would grab more market share. Claude seems to be comfortable with his current volume. He only builds 6 stoves per day. That may be why he isn't jumping up and down trying to prove real world results...maybe thats the reason. He also mentions to me that he isn't interested in educating other stove makers on how to improve their products without compensation.

 

[Fsappo]

Install it in a room with an AC connected to a KILL-A-WATT. Burn 5lbs. [or minimal amount] of pellets. Cool the room & read the KILL-A-WATT. Repeat for different model when outdoor conditions are similar.

Now, thats interesting. I have no idea what a Kill A watt device is. I'll try to google it and see if that could simplify things. Then we can ship a stove to a neutral corner, like webbys garage and let him test it that way.