J- takeman and others

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

tonyd

Feeling the Heat
Aug 8, 2008
345
Hughesville Md
I purchased a ton of Greenways yesterday and noticed the skid wasn't as tall as other tons I have purchased. (Hardwood from a flooring co). Denser and heavier pellet I gather. My question is, when doing tests, did any pellets burn any longer or slower making up for the loss in volume? Are we getting the same amount of burn time per skid???? $189 a ton is a very good price, but if Im loosing 1/4 of the burn time, it may not be so good. What's your take?
 
Good questions tonyd.

A denser pellet is heavier as you stated. It will most likely produce more heat, Due to a denser fuel charge and you can reduce the feed rate to extend the burn time.

I have found that if your stove is thermostat controlled(Auto/Off) it doesn't seem to be as big a deal with the denser pellet. Because the house temp rises quicker and you reach the set temp sooner. The stove doesn't run as long as the less dense pellet. A 24/7 burner would need to reduce the feed rate to extend the burn time.

Just like a furnace burning what ever fuel it may be, Your house needs X amount of BTU's to maintain the temperature indoors. A higher BTU output furnace would reach the desired temp sooner than a lower BTU furnace. Both would keep you warm on the average cold days. But in the extreme cold we would choose the Higher BTU furnace to be sure we stayed warm. If your stove struggles to keep you warm? Maybe choose the high octane fuel. Get the most BTU output you possible can.

Someday we may see BTU ratings on the bag that are actually what they are. PFI new standards is trying to address this issue. A wait and see?
 
jt rates barefoots highly. corinths get a bad rap from wherever. i bought both & immediately noticed the corinths had a plumper bag. my conclusion= a denser pellet burns hotter so if your pellets arent full of fines due to the seeming loss of volume of the bag then ure fine. i like reading the PFI label
 
BLIMP said:
jt rates barefoots highly. corinths get a bad rap from wherever. i bought both & immediately noticed the corinths had a plumper bag. my conclusion= a denser pellet burns hotter so if your pellets arent full of fines due to the seeming loss of volume of the bag then ure fine. i like reading the PFI label

I loved the Barefoots so much, I didn't buy them! I bought Cubex and Hamers this year. Barefoots were just too pricey! Corinth's were Ok for a shoulder pellet. But didn't cut it for a cold weather pellet. So did a lot of others.

I have a basement install and don't like a cold house. I want max heat in the cold. My stove keeps up better and the house is warmer without over working the stove! You will not find me huddling by my pellet stove come January. I will be upstairs watching the wifey parade around in her skiveys! :) :p
 
A hardwood pellet will also have a smaller volume in the bag (and in the hopper!) ... some users actually thought they were 'cheated' because their softwoods take up more space to make a 40lb. bag.
 
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.
 
tonyd said:
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.

Doing the length of burn compared to the temp output. That's the easy part. Figuring out the difference between the 2 is the hard part! Someone needs to explain a formula to compare them?

We may even find that its so close we can't call it! But those who need max BTU's and quick recovery times need to favor the dense pellet. :cheese:
 
tonyd said:
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.

Uh-Oh I think we may have another one !!

Schoondog
 
schoondog said:
tonyd said:
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.

Uh-Oh I think we may have another one !!

Schoondog

Yup! Sure sounds like he's a tester waiting to join us! We just need to reel him in! :)
 
Hardwood pellets may take up less space because they weigh more in volume, but it's been my understanding that they do not put out any more heat. IIRC softwood pellets put out about 10% more heat than hardwood.

http://www.pelletking.com/wood-pellet-information.aspx
 
when i called Twin Ports testing lab the chemist told me they promoted any pellet mfr would spend $25k on their own BOMB CALORIMETER so to better assure the quality of their pellets on a regular basis. 25K$ seems an insignificant cost when compared to the cost of the mill so why not? maybe because the btu value of wood cellulose is pretty constant & the affective factors are humidity, ash, & chlorine contents[to avert fluepipe deterioration], duh BTW Corinth told me they did test these on a regular basis
 
BeGreen said:
Hardwood pellets may take up less space because they weigh more in volume, but it's been my understanding that they do not put out any more heat. IIRC softwood pellets put out about 10% more heat than hardwood.

http://www.pelletking.com/wood-pellet-information.aspx
the resin content of the wood [pine] does make a diff. 1 "artificial binder" for pellets is parafin, wonder how that affects the btu
 
BTU said:
j-takeman said:
tonyd said:
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.

Doing the length of burn compared to the temp output. That's the easy part. Figuring out the difference between the 2 is the hard part! Someone needs to explain a formula to compare them?

We may even find that its so close we can't call it! But those who need max BTU's and quick recovery times need to favor the dense pellet. :cheese:

Here this might work for you and give you an easy explanation.......

You should know that the solution of ax2+bx+c=0

There is an analogous formula for polynomials of degree three: The solution of ax3+bx2+cx+d=0 is

(A formula like this was first published by Cardano in 1545.) Or, more briefly,

x = {q + [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + {q - [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + p

where
p = -b/(3a), q = p3 + (bc-3ad)/(6a2), r = c/(3a)

But I do not recommend that you memorize these formulas.

See, once you know the secret formula the answer is quite easy......... :cheese:

Yes but exactly what bearing do any of those equation solutions have on the matter at hand?

I would be more inclined to see some differential equations not simple polynomial.

An exercise I leave for the students out there.
 
Some how I get the feeling It would have been very interesting to be in ear shot of that phone conversation!

Moisture also plays a roll in the BTU output. Funny how my testing actually showed that the higher ash content pellets did not produce the temps of the lower ash pellets! Must have gotten really lucky!
 
SmokeyTheBear said:
BTU said:
j-takeman said:
tonyd said:
One day I'll give this a try. Same measure of pellets (volume not weight). Record burn times and output readings on identical settings. This stuff keeps my wheels turning. I thought we were just trying to heat the house. I think their my be more to it. he he.

Doing the length of burn compared to the temp output. That's the easy part. Figuring out the difference between the 2 is the hard part! Someone needs to explain a formula to compare them?

We may even find that its so close we can't call it! But those who need max BTU's and quick recovery times need to favor the dense pellet. :cheese:

Here this might work for you and give you an easy explanation.......

You should know that the solution of ax2+bx+c=0

There is an analogous formula for polynomials of degree three: The solution of ax3+bx2+cx+d=0 is

(A formula like this was first published by Cardano in 1545.) Or, more briefly,

x = {q + [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + {q - [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + p

where
p = -b/(3a), q = p3 + (bc-3ad)/(6a2), r = c/(3a)

But I do not recommend that you memorize these formulas.

See, once you know the secret formula the answer is quite easy......... :cheese:

Yes but exactly what bearing do any of those equation solutions have on the matter at hand?

I would be more inclined to see some differential equations not simple polynomial.

An exercise I leave for the students out there.

Please give us and explain fully, A simple math formula to figure out pellet A compared to pellet B. Way to techy for me!
 
j-takeman said:
Some how I get the feeling It would have been very interesting to be in ear shot of that phone conversation!

Moisture also plays a roll in the BTU output. Funny how my testing actually showed that the higher ash content pellets did not produce the temps of the lower ash pellets! Must have gotten really lucky!
u gave me the fone#! call him up & ask . hey= premeasure 1lb containers of 2 different pellets, feed them 1 after the other, use a stopwatch, & make notes....on a temp constant , windstill day
 
BLIMP said:
j-takeman said:
Some how I get the feeling It would have been very interesting to be in ear shot of that phone conversation!

Moisture also plays a roll in the BTU output. Funny how my testing actually showed that the higher ash content pellets did not produce the temps of the lower ash pellets! Must have gotten really lucky!
u gave me the fone#! call him up & ask . hey= premeasure 1lb containers of 2 different pellets, feed them 1 after the other, use a stopwatch, & make notes....on a temp constant , windstill day

Did you annoy him as much as you do me???? :) ;-P

I will let you test Barefoots against Corinths for us! What else are you going to measure? Hopefully heat value and not just the time it takes to feed them. Still think it would require a bit more math than that!

Picture found at woodpellets.com
 

Attachments

  • density.jpg
    density.jpg
    138.7 KB · Views: 507
j-takeman said:
BLIMP said:
j-takeman said:
Some how I get the feeling It would have been very interesting to be in ear shot of that phone conversation!

Moisture also plays a roll in the BTU output. Funny how my testing actually showed that the higher ash content pellets did not produce the temps of the lower ash pellets! Must have gotten really lucky!
u gave me the fone#! call him up & ask . hey= premeasure 1lb containers of 2 different pellets, feed them 1 after the other, use a stopwatch, & make notes....on a temp constant , windstill day

Did you annoy him as much as you do me???? :) ;-P

I will let you test Barefoots against Corinths for us! What else are you going to measure? Hopefully heat value and not just the time it takes to feed them. Still think it would require a bit more math than that!

Picture found at woodpellets.com

My picture must be on the left because I'm too dense to understand most of this thread....
 
tonyd,

If you are like me(busy most of the time). You can't baby sit the stove 24/7 I figure if we put an hour meter on the low limit switch we can record the actual hours the stove has fire. I will look into getting one from the junk box at work for my time studies.

I will us my old quad and the hour meter will go on the fan switch as it does not have proof of fire switch. I will use the quad as it has a gate in the hopper to adjust fuel charge. I can set the temp for any pellet with it.

Test proceedure

Start stove.
Set temp to 200ºF
let stove run until it goes out. Log the hour meter read out.

Reset the hour meter to zero. Repeat for the second pellet.

What do you think?
 
The control sounds perfect. Same weather and temp conditions as possible. If the stove burns through the more dense pellets as quick as the less dense pellets, the results will have people thinking again. Or, re thinking????? Thanks
 
The best I could do would be to add a measure of pellets (1 level 2 gal bucket full) Accentra set on stove temp, auto ignite. With a empty hopper, add pellets and start cycle. Record temps and time from start to lights out. I would try it a couple of times to see how consistent the results are. That tall skid of Lignetics may be worth the extra money they ask.
 
tonyd said:
The best I could do would be to add a measure of pellets (1 level 2 gal bucket full) Accentra set on stove temp, auto ignite. With a empty hopper, add pellets and start cycle. Record temps and time from start to lights out. I would try it a couple of times to see how consistent the results are. That tall skid of Lignetics may be worth the extra money they ask.

I was told by a NEWP rep that you have to set the output temp of the stove to be the same for each pellet you are compairing. This isn't an easy task with most stoves. If the dense pellet provides more heat than the less dense. You need to increase the less dense feedrate or the less dense has the "length of time" edge!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.