Kuuma Vapor-Fire 100 EPA Testing Results

[JRHAWK9]

Density of CO at NTP is 0.1150 lb/CF. So 97.4 CF of CO per million BTU.

Optimum efficiency, as defined -HERE- is, "Optimum overall efficiency at a specific burn rate (LHV)" Still don't really know what that means.

 

[Highbeam]

Also note that the manual says 6.6 grams per hour. THAT IS NOT VERY EFFICIENT. Thats in the smoke dragon realm. Don't kill the messenger, thats what the manual says. Frankly I am shocked, I thought the caddy was MUCH cleaner than that. chit, a 2010 Kuuma was 1 gram an hour.

Yes, 6.6 is dirty but don't make the mistake of equating high efficiency with low emissions. Totally unrelated. My bk is the second most efficient stove in the market but emissions are higher than many.

 

[STIHLY DAN]

Yes, 6.6 is dirty but don't make the mistake of equating high efficiency with low emissions. Totally unrelated. My bk is the second most efficient stove in the market but emissions are higher than many.

They absolutely are related. Yes one unit may be able to extract more heat out of the flue gas than another making it "more efficient" But if you are not burning the particulates and smoke you are throwing unmade heat up the chimney. in other words you are getting more btu's out of the same lb of wood.

 

[Highbeam]

They absolutely are related. Yes one unit may be able to extract more heat out of the flue gas than another making it "more efficient" But if you are not burning the particulates and smoke you are throwing unmade heat up the chimney. in other words you are getting more btu's out of the same lb of wood.

Nope. Unrelated. Weird but true. Just check the stoves out that have been tested for emissions and efficiency.

 

[STIHLY DAN]

Nope. Unrelated. Weird but true. Just check the stoves out that have been tested for emissions and efficiency.

All I can say is that science says that it is true. You can play roger goodel, but numbers are truth. When you have your fossil fuel unit tuned, the give you combustion efficiency from a combustion analyzer. You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.

 

[Highbeam]

All I can say is that science says that it is true. You can play roger goodel, but numbers are truth. When you have your fossil fuel unit tuned, the give you combustion efficiency from a combustion analyzer. You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.

It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.

 

[brenndatomu]

You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.

It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.

Makes sense to me...the triple pass boiler will have less run time because it can satisfy the 'stat faster...thereby more efficient

 

[maple1]

I've been wondering something about all this emission testing stuff for a while now - and this looks like a good place to bring it.

How does all this testing, account for ash production? Because I would assume that any fly ash that goes out the flu when burning would show up as emissions in the testing - but some appliances send out more fly ash than others, and some retain more ash in the appliance itself, to be cleaned out later with your handy scoop & bucket or whatever tools of choice. So how is that accounted for? Seems that could skew testing results dramatically.

 

[JRHAWK9]

I've been wondering something about all this emission testing stuff for a while now - and this looks like a good place to bring it.

How does all this testing, account for ash production? Because I would assume that any fly ash that goes out the flu when burning would show up as emissions in the testing - but some appliances send out more fly ash than others, and some retain more ash in the appliance itself, to be cleaned out later with your handy scoop & bucket or whatever tools of choice. So how is that accounted for? Seems that could skew testing results dramatically.

Go -HERE- and download the entire emissions test report of the Garn Jr. It has all the data, if you feel like combing through it. I have no idea how similar it is to the wood furnace testing procedure though.

 

[STIHLY DAN]

It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.

That is why there is 3 inefficiencies, combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency, overall efficiency. Yes you are correct somewhat. You can have a dirty burn like the Bk but be very thermal efficient, and have it be overall more efficient than a clean burn drolet that is not thermally efficient. But overall efficiency takes into account both so it wont be by much. Unless say you made your very thermally efficient BK into a clean burn also. Then your overall efficiency would be much greater.

To BK and drolet owners, this was just hypothetical numbers to use in an example. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

 

[Highbeam]

That is why there is 3 inefficiencies, combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency, overall efficiency. Yes you are correct somewhat. You can have a dirty burn like the Bk but be very thermal efficient, and have it be overall more efficient than a clean burn drolet that is not thermally efficient. But overall efficiency takes into account both so it wont be by much. Unless say you made your very thermally efficient BK into a clean burn also. Then your overall efficiency would be much greater.

To BK and drolet owners, this was just hypothetical numbers to use in an example. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

Thanks Dan, I only consider overall efficiency as important (regular epa solid fuel stuff) and have owned very low emissions stoves that were very inefficient. Then I moved to a much more efficient stove that had worse emissions ratings. Similarly I own a diesel truck with higher efficiency and higher emissions than current models.

I have just enough experience to know better than to call emissions and efficiency directly related.

 

[STIHLY DAN]

Similarly I own a diesel truck with higher efficiency and higher emissions than current models.

Funny, I was going to use that example next.

 

[STIHLY DAN]

To get back on track, thats whats so great about the Kuuma. Great emissions and great efficiency. All wrapped up in a set it and forget it unit.

 

[brenndatomu]

thats whats so great about the Kuuma. Great emissions and great efficiency. All wrapped up in a set it and forget it unit.

Wonder what they would charge me to mod my Tundra a lil? Or even better, the Yukon! Ole CK (used to be on AS) would have (in a past life) a cow if he found out that Kuuma was "messin up" one of his beloved Yooks

 

[STIHLY DAN]

Wonder what they would charge me to mod my Tundra a lil? Or even better, the Yukon! Ole CK (used to be on AS) would have (in a past life) a cow if he found out that Kuuma was "messin up" one of his beloved Yooks

He was fun to talk to. Very passionate. I bet yukon sales went down after he left them.