Let's put the silly GPH arguments behind us

[precaud]

There's ongoing argument here about one stove having 2 grams per hour cleaner emissions than another. Let's put this into perspective and see how truly silly this is, splitting hairs over such a small amount.

For simplicity in comparision, we'll use a 10-pound fuel load. There's 454 grams per pound.
A 1.5 gph stove has emissions of 0.033% .
A 3.5 gph stove has emissions of 0.077%

That's less than one tenth of one percent for both.

I suggest it's insignificant. What WAS significant were the design developments that got stoves down from 100+ gph to sub-10 gph. But arguing over 4 hundredths of a percent is truly silly.

 

[Gunner]

I agree, it's splitting hairs.

Next some will be measuring paint thickness.

 

[babalu87]

My stoves better than your stove
My stoves better than yours
My stoves better
And it makes less smoke
My stoves better than yours,

 

[bacsales]

+1

 

[precaud]

Hey baba... my 2110 is cleaner than your 3610...

 

[babalu87]

Hey baba... my 2110 is cleaner than your 3610...

Thats only because its firebox is smaller, like your shoes

 

[Rhone]

I agree, and it's so variable. Me burning your stove compared to you burning it, we'll have different GPH's. Heck, on occasion my fire collapses on itself and extinguishes the flames. Hate to see what the particulates would be on that burn. I figured out once, that the difference between 3 gph and 4gph if you could maintain it burning 12/hours a day for 6 months is a savings of just under 5 lbs of wood/year... which is basically a single split. If you love the look of one unit but it's 4 GPH, is it really worth passing it over or paying more money to get a 3 GPH unit to potentially save just a single split/year?

 

[begreen]

And if you really are concious about grams/hr of particulate emission, turn off your truck instead of idling. That's about 3000 grams per hour of carbon.

 

[elkimmeg]

Next some will be measuring paint thickness.

speaking of which, commonly a primer and decent finish coat in about 50 microns thick.

And yes they do have paint thickness gages

 

[precaud]

And yes they do have paint thickness gages

True... I had one here (a Stavely) a while back but a customer bought it before I had time to play with it.

 

[babalu87]

Ooooh ooooh
Military story

In the mid-80's when I was stationed at Langley AFB there were a few of the older F-15's that were having issues with flight control and I think it was three or four that were lost, crashed during training exercises.
The cause?
Too much paint. Seems that someone in the paint shop lost count of how many coats of paint were on those birds and the extra weight was causing the flight control issues and the eventual demise of a few planes. It wasnt so much the added weight to the plane but where the extra weight was.

 

[Corie]

Its amazing how precise those planes have to be!


Did you happen to do a jet nozzle test to check for the particulate emissions babalu?

 

[babalu87]

Its amazing how precise those planes have to be!


Did you happen to do a jet nozzle test to check for the particulate emissions babalu?

No but since I am in the mood, another USAF story.

I worked in the ground equipment section (hydraulics, pneumatics, bomb lifts, turbine compressors etc) and I found out just how powerful the jet blast is first hand.

The F-15 was running and I had to pick up a piece of equipment during an exercise. I make eye contact with the crew chief who had just given chocks out to the ground crew. He must have had a brain cramp and gave the pilot the go ahead to taxi out. Even at essentially an idle, when those two F-100 engines powered up to taxi the jet it nearly knocked over the tractor I was driving in. Blew out a window and about knocked me out. The crew chief couldnt have been more apologetic but boy howdy I was pissed off.

 

[Corie]

Pratt and Whitney F100 Jet Engine

17,800 lbf (79.1 kN) military thrust

Yep, I'd say that'd be enough to really ruin your day. I love the military stories. More more more!

 

[babalu87]

There were still some F-4s and F-106's in service with the National Guard in my day and they would regularly come in for training etc.
The F-106's were from Cape Cod and had a cool Harpoon painted on the side, funny thing was the pilot always had his golf clubs in the backseat of the plane Langley has two beautiful courses on base.

The three best planes to watch take off from the end of the runway were the F-106 the F-4 and the F-111
All needed afterburner to get off the ground but the F-106 was the loudest of the three, those buggers shook the earth.

F-106:
(broken link removed to http://www.f-106deltadart.com/101fis/72503%20-%20Cape%20Cod.jpg)

This is from the F-15 squadron I spent three years with:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ra5cimages/f15clangley_1.jpg

People used to ask what FF stands for, F#$%*^ FAST!
It actually stands for First Fighter as in the First Tactical Fighter Wing based at Langley, sad day when they made the switch to the F-22

 

[stoveguy2esw]

There were still some F-4s and F-106's in service with the National Guard in my day and they would regularly come in for training etc.
The F-106's were from Cape Cod and had a cool Harpoon painted on the side, funny thing was the pilot always had his golf clubs in the backseat of the plane Langley has two beautiful courses on base.

The three best planes to watch take off from the end of the runway were the F-106 the F-4 and the F-111
All needed afterburner to get off the ground but the F-106 was the loudest of the three, those buggers shook the earth.

F-106:
(broken link removed to http://www.f-106deltadart.com/101fis/72503%20-%20Cape%20Cod.jpg)

This is from the F-15 squadron I spent three years with:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ra5cimages/f15clangley_1.jpg

People used to ask what FF stands for, F#$%*^ FAST!
It actually stands for First Fighter as in the First Tactical Fighter Wing based at Langley, sad day when they made the switch to the F-22

my uncles worked on f-106 delta darts for the florida national guard out of jacksonville, i wanna say the 175th was designation , they have f-15e strike eagles now, i remember as a kid looking over the delta darts when i was lucky enough to get to go out to the base. i myself was in aviation , however it was helicopters in the army, served in germany 3rd ID, el paso texas (3rd ACR (cav) , Bco 2/501st avn camp humphreys Korea , and finished out with C co 1/ 160th SOAR the nightstalkers out of ft Campbell Ky. i wish i could tell the stories about that unit, non-disclosure is in effect. but i know some pretty good ones from the regular army time, probably fodder for the ash can if sombody wants to start a thread there i'd be happy to contribute, enjoyed the pics babalu

N.S.D.Q. !

 

[stoveguy2esw]

There's ongoing argument here about one stove having 2 grams per hour cleaner emissions than another. Let's put this into perspective and see how truly silly this is, splitting hairs over such a small amount.

For simplicity in comparision, we'll use a 10-pound fuel load. There's 454 grams per pound.
A 1.5 gph stove has emissions of 0.033% .
A 3.5 gph stove has emissions of 0.077%

That's less than one tenth of one percent for both.

I suggest it's insignificant. What WAS significant were the design developments that got stoves down from 100+ gph to sub-10 gph. But arguing over 4 hundredths of a percent is truly silly.

as a manufacturer, i see it as a bit more signifigant, imagine that 2gph multiplied by the amount of woodstove users nationwide, kinda adds up. to be honest , it really doesnt factor into the overall output, but it can and does add up in the environmental impact side. (although i STILL maintain that petroleum products are what should be more strictly regulated, not natural wood burning. wood burning occurs in nature without mans help, therefore the earth can and does clean up after it , gasoline (fdor instance) does not burn in nature in its natural form without mans help, therefore the earth is not designed to deal with the residues. nuff said , wrong forum, but still my 2 cents worth

 

[BrotherBart]

i myself was in aviation , however it was helicopters in the army...

Whoa! Not only builds great stoves but is a fellow Army rotorhead too. Drop into my website sometime Mike. Hopefully I get it moved soon, those pop-ups the free host started sticking in the thing are making the guys crazy.

(broken link removed)

Pretty much a dormant site that I put together to find the guys for the funeral in 2001 one but the story of finding the missing ship and crew after 30 years is pretty interesting.

We were honored in 2003 when the Chinook company that did the fly-over was headed for Iraq wanted to resurrect our call-sign Freighttrain for deployment. I went down to Ft. Eustis for the hand over ceremony and hadn't been so proud of a bunch of helicopter jockeys in 40 years.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

no kidding! you were in hooks? b/2-501avn was chinook unit i had the honor of serving with in ROK. had a good time with those jokers, great airframe (providing you kept hydraulic fluid in em ) crew chiefs called em the "boeing rainstorm" if it wasnt leaking you had a problem< lol > i took a quick look at the website , i bookmarked it and im gonna crawl all over it. here is my unit's homepage http://www.nightstalkers.com/ i invite all to take a tour of the premier aviation unit in military history, with all ive done in my time breathing, becoming a part of this unit will always rank as my proudest accomplishment

 

[Marty]

Hey all,
I can burn green wood soaking wet and I get 0.000 grams /year emmissions.

But my hearthstone was made on a wednesday.

But all in all I'm no better than you guys cause I make up for it by eating beans.