Part 8 of Mega-Query: Emissions...What Do They Mean, Really?

[TruePatriot]

Part 8 of Mega-Query: Emissions...What Do They Mean, Really?

Hi all,

The above subhead lists the topics in this section of my Mega-Query: Which Woodstove to Get? series.
Please see this link for the specifications of the house, etc…, should you need to clarify something to answer the following questions. https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/6812/ Thanks.

Emissions
Emissions are not really a serious criteria for me, as these are all post-1990, EPA-certified stoves. In other words, they’re as good as it gets, and they're far better than the pre-1990 stoves. And I suspect, just from my own research, that despite the EPA’s insistence on lab-testing for emissions, that there is not enough standardization in mfr.’s listings of performance, capacities, etc…, for one to be too concerned about variations in emissions ratings. So, for anyone trying to help me, who does not have unlimited time, please skip this section, lest I frustrate you needlessly. I’m just curious about a couple of things re: emissions, for those who have the time.

For some reason, Quadra-fire seems to have (erroneously) enjoyed the reputation that it is “the cleanest stove on the market.” I saw an online retailer’s web page make this claim, and one of the Q & A comments here in the www.hearth.com forums, someone echoed it—perhaps the stove owner got the idea from the retailer’s website? LoL

However, among these five stoves I’m considering, the Quadra-fire 5700 is easily the dirtiest, (and not by a little!) according to the mfr.’s listings. But as I said, this is more of a trivial interest than a real consideration, as all the modern, secondary burn stoves are much cleaner than the “boxes of death” from back in the day.

Here’s how they rank, per their own brochures:

Country Canyon ST310—3.2 Gm/hr.
Lopi Liberty—2.6 Gm/hr.
Quadra-fire 5700—4.13 Gm/hr.
Napolean 1900—2.8 Gm/hr.
P.E. Summit “Classic”—3.56Gm/hr.

Initially, I erroneously assumed that there was a direct, inverse, correlation between efficiency and emissions. In other words, I assumed that the dirtier the stove, the less efficient it must be.

However, upon further reflection, I realized that this cannot be true, because at 4.13 Gm/hr, the Quadra-fire is approx. 63% dirtier than the Lopi Liberty, and yet efficiency-wise, they vary by only .9%! Now, I do recognize that they may all have used different testing labs, however, and that this could account for some inconsistency in emissions ratings—but certainly, the two stoves do not vary in efficiency by the 63% difference they have in emissions!

And does anyone have an efficiency rating for the Napolean? Just curious….

Country Canyon ST310--68.6% per Oregon DEQ (What is DEQ?)
Lopi Liberty—76.9% DEQ (?)
Quadra-fire 5700--76%
Napolean 1900--???
P.E. Summit “Classic”-- 72.5%

So, I got to thinking—correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the emissions being measured actually just particulate matter, as opposed to gases? If so, I got thinking…perhaps the difference is that in the Liberty, for example, more ash fails to make it up the flue, and actually stays in the coal bed, to be removed in the form of greater ashes-per-BTU produced, than in the Quadra-fire. In other words, maybe the is Quadra-fire is 63% better at lofting it’s ashes up the flue, (because it tests 63% dirtier than the Lopi) due to the configuration of it’s secondary burn path? And so the Liberty has a 63% cleaner exhaust, but a 63% faster-filling ash pan?

So that’s my theory—any comments? School me—please! LoL

Hope to see you in the next section, especially you Quadra-fire owners!

Thanks again,

Peter

 

[elkimmeg]

Blaze king clasic
King 1107
The King 1107 is available in Ultra, Parlor and
Classic models. With a 4.27 cu. ft. fire box, this
stove isn’t just large but deep, providing safety,
the ability to load up to 80 pounds of wood
and reduce ash removal intervals. With an 8”
flue and an honest to goodness thermostat, the
King can burn up to 40 hours on a low setting.
Produces up to 47,000 Btu’s and efficiencies as
high as 82.5%! Blaze King’s optional dual vari-
able speed fans are available on all King and
Princess models and will help to spread the
heat throughout your home. Emissions as lows
as 1.76 gr/hr.

 

[RonB]

Blaze king clasic
King 1107
The King 1107 is available in Ultra, Parlor and
Classic models. With a 4.27 cu. ft. fire box, this
stove isn’t just large but deep, providing safety,
the ability to load up to 80 pounds of wood
and reduce ash removal intervals. With an 8”
flue and an honest to goodness thermostat, the
King can burn up to 40 hours on a low setting.
Produces up to 47,000 Btu’s and efficiencies as
high as 82.5%! Blaze King’s optional dual vari-
able speed fans are available on all King and
Princess models and will help to spread the
heat throughout your home. Emissions as lows
as 1.76 gr/hr.

Is it really possible to burn a wood stove on one load of wood for 40 hrs?? Is this your personal experience? Seems too good to be true.

 

[Gunner]

IMO emission # are bullchit...thats the one thing I paid no attention to when deciding on a stove. All the new EPA stuff is clean. The biggest thing is how you operate it. When you start talking tenths of grams/hr you are just waisting time that could be spent processing wood.

 

[Roospike]

IMO emission # are bullchit...thats the one thing I paid no attention to when deciding on a stove. All the new EPA stuff is clean. The biggest thing is how you operate it. When you start talking tenths of grams/hr you are just waisting time that could be spent processing wood.

adding:
FYI" The big blaze King with the big 4.6 cf firebox is not 82% efficient fully loaded at a 40 hour burn time ! Thats all BS and a numbers game. The 82% efficiency is around 6-7 hour burn time and over that is goes way down hill. Also the heat you get off of a full load of wood in the blaze king over 40 hour burn time is less then a small electric space heater.

Big #'s game and a lot of BS .

 

[TruePatriot]

Wow...and I thought my work was going to be over for awhile, once I dropped all this on you guys...WTF was I thinkin'? :grrr:

I'm not takin' these in any particular order; I posted parts 1-10, and now I'm into my second beer--it's 1:57 am, and I've been up 26 hours soooo...hopes I don't offend anyone.

By the way...was my tone offensive? Because someone of you guys (not necessarily in this thread--remember, I just read perhaps 40 responses from perhaps 10 guys?) sound a little...TICKED. :roll:

Oh, great--tell me I can't see ANYONE'S repsonses, to which I'm trying to respond? WTF LOL

Hokey...gotta cut my response, back out, take a peek, and go from memory. Reminds me of...never mind...family site.

Elkimmeg (Did I spellmember your name correctly?)

You know, being an English major, I've got to get over myself. "Blaze King" also sounds...well, Quadra-fire, Country, Blaze King--they all sound (just a little) hokey to me--no offense. (Now, Pacific Energy, merely as a name, mind, sounds respectable--I'm just sayin'.... I know, what's in a name....) But I somewhat like the George Jetson modernity of the Blaze King! If that swollen-sided one isn't the spittin' image of Rosie the Robot on George Jetson! (Not my style, but I bet my g.f. thinks it's "Boss".)

But seriously, Elk? THANK YOU! The Blaze King pdf is just too much for me to absorb right now, but I will DEFINITELY check it out.

Do you guys like those units?


RonB:

I hear you (And no offense to Elk) re: this:

Is it really possible to burn a wood stove on one load of wood for 40 hrs?? Is this your personal experience? Seems too good to be true.

It do sound incredible. But I can’t argue with 4.7 cu.ft. Are there really DUAL, VARIABLE-SPEED fans? That has to be the air-handling equivalent of the bulldozer's clutched, track-steering! Assuming, that is, that they're individually-adustable. Do the fans have remotes??? No sweat, I’ll read it myself, tomorrow.

Gunner, Gunner, Gunner...:

I feel like you’re takin’ me to the wood shed here, (no pun intended!) when you say:

IMO emission # are bullchit...thats the one thing I paid no attention to when deciding on a stove. All the new EPA stuff is clean. The biggest thing is how you operate it. When you start talking tenths of grams/hr you are just waisting time that could be spent processing wood.

Now, I’m not tryin’ to crack wise or nuthin’ but aren’t we sayin’ just about the same thing, when I said this?
TruePatriot wrote:

Emissions are not really a serious criteria for me, as these are all post-1990, EPA-certified stoves. In other words, they’re as good as it gets, and they’re far better than the pre-1990 stoves. And I suspect, just from my own research, that despite the EPA’s insistence on lab-testing for emissions, that there is not enough standardization in mfr.’s listings of performance, capacities, etc…, for one to be too concerned about variations in emissions ratings. So, for anyone trying to help me, who does not have unlimited time, please skip this section, lest I frustrate you needlessly. I’m just curious about a couple of things re: emissions, for those who have the time.

Okay, you said it on one word (“bullchit”) but, I mean, you do see that I’m agreeing with you, right? What do you sound like when someone actually tries to p*** you off? ;-) Did I "frustrate you needlessly?" Because, as you can see, I was tryin' to avoid that very thing....

But I totally agree with you, i.e., the operator is the key, and must pay attention to the important variables, as the EPA has come in and done something right, in cleaning up the stoves.

My pointing out about “tenths of a gram” was…well, you can read my post. I’m not wringin’ my hands about tenths of a gram; I was just reporting the published figures as part of a larger discussion.

But you remind me of my Dad (and that’s a GOOD thing!). He (literally, as he restores antique trucks) could have built a stove in the time I’ve spent on research. I promise to resume “processing wood” real soon!

Roospike (I’m not even askin’) and firestarter

I do agree—40 hours sounds pretty incredible, but I guess I could see it on a slow smolder. My last (35’ tall flames) “yard waste” fire was so hot, WE COOKED STEAK on the coals—THE NEXT NIGHT. It actually stayed warm 3 or 4 days, out in the open, on the ground. But, as Roospike said, at a very low heat..

I will definitely look at the Blaze King, but in the mean time, what other opinions do you guys have of them? I mean, if we discount the 40 hr. claim, and assume it’s only capable of more normal performance, what do you guys think of them, relative to the Fab Five I’m interested in?

You know, in the many creative avatars and signatures here, I don't see very many Blaze Kings. Is that because they're just TFBig, or are they generally not held in the regard of, say, a P.E. Summit?

Can I get a rough idea of Blaze King prices? Around here, most of the stoves I'm looking at are $1,800-2,200., plus the flue, etc....

Thanks, EVERYONE, including the guys I haven’t mentioned here. I did read all the 20? 30-odd responses, at 1 am EST, but I’m not sure I’ll continue writing write now. Up 26 hours, and starting into the adult beverages, I don’t want to type myself into the penalty box, you know?

Tomorrw, with a sober eye, I will look into the Blaze Kings….

All the best, and thanks again--even to those of you who sound like you're mad at me--LOL J/k

Peter

 

[elkimmeg]

I have no background using a Blaze king stove But I have inspected them. One owner I know swears it was his best investment.
They do produce incredable heat and do deliver on long productive burn times ( productive to me is when the stove top temps are above 400/450
with a decent bed of coals for reload.) Even if all things are equal that 1.5 cuft more of fire box capacity is going to produce more BTUs longer.

As for the company they are but a few that have survived since the 70's the others being Vermont Castings anf Jotul being most prominant.
Point being there is a long history of development, not any recent fly by night new startup company. Every stove you listed is top notch quality stoves by quality manufactures
There is not a bad choice in the bunch. They are also one of the few that still use Cat combustors in the stove lineup. They also employ secondary burn thermomaically controled,
which helps explain the long claimed burn times. In reality, PE Lopi and others have designed their stoves similar to the Blaze kings .

They also have the pedestal models you prefere and generous ash comtainment

Research them and compare
http://www.blazeking.com/woodproducts.htm

It make no difference to me which stove you purchase. I just provided another quality alternative I think you should consider.

As to which stove is better, untimately the one you purchase. If you noticed PE has a strong following here as any quality stove should.
They take there stoves to heart as the ultimate heating machine and for their uses ond ownership it works for them.
But they get a bit defensive when a 4.5 cu ft modern technological heating box is introduced and heats cleanner longer and produces more BTUs

 

[jjbaer]

IMO emission # are bullchit...thats the one thing I paid no attention to when deciding on a stove. All the new EPA stuff is clean. The biggest thing is how you operate it. When you start talking tenths of grams/hr you are just waisting time that could be spent processing wood.

adding:
FYI" The big blaze King with the big 4.6 cf firebox is not 82% efficient fully loaded at a 40 hour burn time ! Thats all BS and a numbers game. The 82% efficiency is around 6-7 hour burn time and over that is goes way down hill. Also the heat you get off of a full load of wood in the blaze king over 40 hour burn time is less then a small electric space heater.

Big #'s game and a lot of BS .

Roo,

Let's do the math...dry wood is about 7,000 BTU's per pound so 80 pounds is 560,000 BTU's IF it's dry Assuming about 80% efficiency that's about 448,000 BTU's of useful heat......so let's assume it's 400,000 BTU's because there's some moisture......divide that by a 40 hr burn and we get about 10,000 BTU/hr... not quite enough to heat a medium sized house but not too bad...... You're correct that they're all pretty clean...yes, some are 4 times cleaner than others (ex: 1 gm/hr v.s. 4 gm/hr) but I feel the same way you do that if the EPA approved them all then I'm buying on other things such as looks, quality, price, etc.....

 

[elkimmeg]

If you are still following your post.
I have been to the burn testing lab and seen the proceedure . The test consist of 50 or more sensors attached to the stove to provide temperatures and readings all fed into a computer. internal stack probes fire box probes and secondary combustion probes. The wood is weighed in the burn process developed with a bed of coals. Attached to the exhaust is Hepa type filters that trap emmissions that can be removed and weighed. Even the ash is removed and weighed to factor in how complete the combustion was everything in monitored by the computers.

Testing and certification cost a lot of money believe me manufactures do not want to fail test Any time during the maunfacuring run the Epa c or Ul can come in pull a sample stove off the production line and request it be tested About the only data sotve manufactures can not fudge is the particulates collected on the filters. For some reason the EPA now list its default for all tested stoves 63% of non cats and 72% for cat stoves though older literature may have listed a stove effeciency ratings. Right now only the GPH is recorded and approved by the EPA.

A stove that emits less particulates naturally burns cleaner, therfore more effecient

 

[Rhone]

I wouldn't worry about the particulates. Picking a stove that puts out 2gph vs. 3gph will save you around a single split of wood/year if things could be done in a constant manner. Don't take this next example for fact I don't account for many things but say I load my unit up with 18 lbs of wood, and lets say 7,000 grams of it isn't water. Over a 6 hour burn my unit puts 3gph, for a waste of 18 grams out of the starting 7,000. See why it's not useful to worry? A 2 gph unit will save me 6 grams of wood more, but that's irrelevant when you think that there was 7,000 to begin with. So, I don't worry about the particulates both are phenominal, chosing a 2gph over a 3gph unit will save oneself like a single split/wood a year.

To clarify on Elk, the EPA requires cats to pass higher standards because unlike non-cat units, cats performance degrade with use so the EPA has to require them to pass higher starting standards to make their emission counts comparible. When they test a cat, they expect a cat to be better brand new vs. non-cats, as the cat approaches mid-life its pollutants should be the same, and during the end of life it should be worse. Over the life of a cat it should be a wash. So, somehow they came up with a cat needs to starts at 72% for it to put out the same emissions as a non-cat at 63%. Basically a cat brand new starts at 72% in mid life should be working at 63% and at end of life working at 54%. In the end, it's average performance is 63% just like coincidentally a non-cat. Todays cats & secondary burn stomp the minimum standards set by the EPA but also remember that's lab performance not real world. I don't suggest looking at the gph because who knows if you'll achieve it in the real world and, it doesn't make a noticeable difference when you think about what you started with. I recommend you get the one you like the look of.

 

[Gunner]

I wouldn't worry about the particulates. Picking a stove that puts out 2gph vs. 3gph will save you around a single split of wood/year if things could be done in a constant manner. Don't take this next example for fact I don't account for many things but say I load my unit up with 18 lbs of wood, and lets say 7,000 grams of it isn't water. Over a 6 hour burn my unit puts 3gph, for a waste of 18 grams out of the starting 7,000. See why it's not useful to worry? A 2 gph unit will save me 6 grams of wood more, but that's irrelevant when you think that there was 7,000 to begin with. So, I don't worry about the particulates both are phenominal, chosing a 2gph over a 3gph unit will save oneself like a single split/wood a year.

To clarify on Elk, the EPA requires cats to pass higher standards because unlike non-cat units, cats performance degrade with use so the EPA has to require them to pass higher starting standards to make their emission counts comparible. When they test a cat, they expect a cat to be better brand new vs. non-cats, as the cat approaches mid-life its pollutants should be the same, and during the end of life it should be worse. Over the life of a cat it should be a wash. So, somehow they came up with a cat needs to starts at 72% for it to put out the same emissions as a non-cat at 63%. Basically a cat brand new starts at 72% in mid life should be working at 63% and at end of life working at 54%. In the end, it's average performance is 63% just like coincidentally a non-cat. Todays cats & secondary burn stomp the minimum standards set by the EPA but also remember that's lab performance not real world. I don't suggest looking at the gph because who knows if you'll achieve it in the real world and, it doesn't make a noticeable difference when you think about what you started with. I recommend you get the one you like the look of.

All excellent points and very true. This has been stated before by yourself and others....unfortunately for some, they are unable to absorb it.

 

[elkimmeg]

Gunner and Rhone I was not taking sides or trying to start any debates I was only telling about the testing process

BTW Rhone where did you get that satistical data of the degration of the cat life? are you talking of the old cat technology or the improvements of the ones found in today's stoves.


Admitidly there is degradation of the cat but also in all stoves if not properly cleaned and maintained, fly ash raises havoc with preformance . Do not assume cat or non cat opperates at peak performance threw its life cycle. You are telling half trueisms . It is true that the Epa mandates a higher standard allowing for degradation but 72% to 54% Any experienced buener can reconize the difference in stove preformance for 72%,or in the case of my stove 80%, to 54% The amount of wood one uses the smoke exiting the chimney the time it takes to engage. I think I can figure out when to clean or replace the combustor. Again you are making assumptions. not based on facts. ITs no different then when a termination cap pluggs eventually the stove is not preforming right, but preformance is restored once the cap is cleaned.

 

[Gunner]

Again you are making assumptions. not based on facts. ITs no different then when a termination cap pluggs eventually the stove is not preforming right, but preformance is restored once the cap is cleaned

The FACT is a combuster will never be as efficient as when new, no amount of vacuming or bathing in vinegar will restore it's performance, it slowly degrades over time until replaced. That is the reason for replacement...cleaning alone cannot restore it's performance to "as tested levels"

 

[BrotherBart]

For what it is worth, cat stoves have to be aged for fifty hours before the first test run and non-cats aged for ten hours. Both at "medium" burn rates.

 

[elkimmeg]

Again you are making assumptions. not based on facts. ITs no different then when a termination cap pluggs eventually the stove is not preforming right, but preformance is restored once the cap is cleaned

The FACT is a combuster will never be as efficient as when new, no amount of vacuming or bathing in vinegar will restore it's performance, it slowly degrades over time until replaced. That is the reason for replacement...cleaning alone cannot restore it's performance to "as tested levels"

as does your oil burner and car I agree its the 54% I having the problem with
Like I said an experienced burner should notice preformance degradation from 80% to 54% Even non cat stoves suffer degradation for fly ash accumnlations in air passages
there is no arguement here just questioning the statistical data supporting the 54% as quoted

 

[Roospike]

Again you are making assumptions. not based on facts. ITs no different then when a termination cap pluggs eventually the stove is not preforming right, but preformance is restored once the cap is cleaned

The FACT is a combuster will never be as efficient as when new, no amount of vacuming or bathing in vinegar will restore it's performance, it slowly degrades over time until replaced. That is the reason for replacement...cleaning alone cannot restore it's performance to "as tested levels"

as does your oil burner and car I agree its the 54% I having the problem with
Like I said an experienced burner should notice preformance degradation from 80% to 54% Even non cat stoves suffer degradation for fly ash accumnlations in air passages
there is no arguement here just questioning the statistical data supporting the 54% as quoted

Elk , we have been over this many times before so I wont get into it again but it is a good topic.

I have noticed you have mentioned in a lot of post about cleaning out fly ash in stoves...... a good idea to clean one stove out but i would like to point out that in a non-cat stove the smoke and fly ash dont go thorough anything like a cat stove does. The only thing comes out the secondary burn chamber holes is hot air .......... smoke and ash dont go in the air outlets , hot air goes out so fly ash, soot , build up isnt an issue with secondary burn chambers , these are cat combuster issues.

I just thought i needed to point this little tid bit of info out. carry on.

 

[elkimmeg]

This is true but I also used non cat stoves for 27 years including the non cat Resolute Acclaim That stove in particular, needed anual cleaning of fly sah that did block the air channels In many stoves aire is ruted behind refractory of heat late shields as it passed in these channells it is pre heated over time dust ash fly ash occupies or takes up residences in the air passages any acumulation reduces the width of the passsages and reduces air flow which equates to poorer stove preformance. now not all stoves are designes in this manner maybe yours is not I would have to look at their cross-sectional diagram showing how the EBT workings but that thermatically box /damper compartment sure looks like a place ash can accumulate

Now I know you worked on rebuilding stoves, by any chance did you use an air gun to blow them out? You know the cloud of dust, that's what I'm also talking about needs removal

Lets not turn this into any thing more than I was describing the testing proceedure At no point did I say the cat stove was better. I questioned why the EPA changed its listings to their default effeciency percentages I then noted the default precentages that's it then Rhone got into the Cat explanaition and I questioned where he can up with the 54% number there is nothing more to it it was to be informational plain and simple

 

[TruePatriot]

Elk:

Thank you for the Blaze King info!

I am still following my posts...I just needed some time to...consider things, after some of the initial responses I got.

I appreciate your recommendation of the Blaze King because I had forgotten it even existed--I saw ads for it a couple of years ago. You are correct to recommend it, as it apparently does everything I want a stove to do-max. heat production, max. burn times (!), steel construction, pedestal availability, the fact that it's got a THERMOSTATICALLY-CONTROLLED DRAFT (to me, that's a biggie) etc....

However, as we all know, and as multiple personages here have advised, since all of the five (or so) stoves I'm considering are top quality units, at some point aesthetics come into play. In other words, a person has to look at, feed and clean that stove, for the next 20 years, so the stove's appearance does play a role in the decision process.

This may seem silly, but I've really been looking forward to watching the secondary combustion process--I wanna see the tube-fire! LOL I won't see that with a cat.

And, to dip a toe into more dangerous waters (given the obviously-ongoing cat vs noncat debate here) I'm not wild about the idea of having to replace the cat, periodically. Plus, while I know we're not supposed to burn any "trash" in a modern stove, I will probably bend that rule a little, now and then, with paper products in lighting fires, etc..., and I believe the non-cat stoves are more tolerant of such abuse. I know, not smart to begin with, but I can see it happening, nonetheless.

So, thanks again for the Blaze King recommendation, as it looks like one hell of a stove! You definitely met every important quality I said I was looking for, when you recommended it--I guess I should have said I had a couple of "emotional" conditions (wanting to watch the secondary burn) as well.

Re: the ongoing debate on emissions, as I said in my original post, I'm not seriously concerned about a given stove's g/hr--rather, I'm more interested in how those ratings are achieved, and what they might or might not say about other aspects of the stove's performance. I definitely appreciate all of the discussion on the intricacies of the EPA's testing, for this reason.

Thanks again,

Peter