Performances questions

  • 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.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
E

European Burner

New Member
Dec 17, 2021
27
Madrid
Hello everyone,
I have some questions that prevent me from understanding energy performance and which product is superior in said performance. I have read in a BKVP post that there are two ways to measure performance (HLV and HHV) and that HHV is what is important. BKVP said there is a 10% to 11% higher performance difference in HHV also that in Europe manufacturers show the performance of their products in LHV (perhaps for marketing). This year 2022, the Ecodesign 2022 regulation has entered into force in the European Union, in which all manufacturers are obliged to meet a performance equal to or greater than 75%, CO emission not greater than 0.12%, level of particles unburned equal to or less than 40mg/Nm3, nitrogen oxides 200 and volatile organic components 120.
Now let's make a comparison between three Spanish wood inserts:

ROCAL ARc 100 CARBEL i-100 LACUNZA GOLD-1000
Performance 78.6% Performance 86.9% Performance 78%
CO 0.09% CO 0.09% CO 0.07%
NOx 107mg/Nm3 NOx 74.39mg/Nm3 NOx 86mg/Nm3
OGC 66mg/Nm3 OGC 36.64mg/Nm3 OGC 67mg/Nm3
DUST 12.10mgNm3 DUST 19.28mg/Nm3 DUST 27mg/Nm3
Nominal heat 11Kw Nominal heat 10.7Kw Nominal heat 11Kw
Smoke Temp 279ºC Smoke Temp 193ºC Smoke Temp 257ºC
Price 2.200-€ Price 1.800-€ Price 2.500-€

Which of them do you think is superior in energy performance?
Will the performance be reflected as equivalent to HLV or HHV (EPA) with the new European Ecodesign 2022 regulation?
How is it possible that there is such a difference in Performance between the CARBEL and the others?
Do you think there would be much difference in performance compared to an equivalent American type Lopi evergreen, PE FP30, Regency I2450, or other non-catalytic inserts?

I appreciate the responses.
 
Hello everyone,
I have some questions that prevent me from understanding energy performance and which product is superior in said performance. I have read in a BKVP post that there are two ways to measure performance (HLV and HHV) and that HHV is what is important. BKVP said there is a 10% to 11% higher performance difference in HHV also that in Europe manufacturers show the performance of their products in LHV (perhaps for marketing). This year 2022, the Ecodesign 2022 regulation has entered into force in the European Union, in which all manufacturers are obliged to meet a performance equal to or greater than 75%, CO emission not greater than 0.12%, level of particles unburned equal to or less than 40mg/Nm3, nitrogen oxides 200 and volatile organic components 120.
Now let's make a comparison between three Spanish wood inserts:

ROCAL ARc 100---------------CARBEL i-100---------------LACUNZA GOLD-1000
Performance 78.6%-----------Performance 86.9%--------Performance 78%
CO 0.09%-----------------------CO 0.09%--------------------CO 0.07%
NOx 107mg/Nm3 -------------NOx 74.39mg/Nm3--------NOx 86mg/Nm3
OGC 66mg/Nm3---------------OGC 36.64mg/Nm3-------OGC 67mg/Nm3
DUST 12.10mgNm3-----------DUST 19.28mg/Nm3------DUST 27mg/Nm3
Nominal heat 11Kw------------Nominal heat 10.7Kw-----Nominal heat 11Kw
Smoke Temp 279ºC-------------Smoke Temp 193ºC--------Smoke Temp 257ºC
Price 2.200-€--------------------Price 1.800-€---------------Price 2.500-€

Which of them do you think is superior in energy performance?
Will the performance be reflected as equivalent to HLV or HHV (EPA) with the new European Ecodesign 2022 regulation?
How is it possible that there is such a difference in Performance between the CARBEL and the others?
Do you think there would be much difference in performance compared to an equivalent American type Lopi evergreen, PE FP30, Regency I2450, or other non-catalytic inserts?

I appreciate the responses.
 
How big are the fireboxes for these three?
 
Those are lengths, not volumes.

But when a firebox is bigger it can generally put out more heat per hour (or second if you adhere to the SI unit of (k)Watt).
 
Sorry but I answered from my mobile and I couldn't explain it well.
It would be multiplying 895mm x 172mm x 357mm which gives us a result of 54,956,580mm3. If we pass this to m3 the result is 0.054m3. If we convert this to cubic feet the result is 1.9 cubic feet.
This 1.9 cubic feet is the interior volume of the firebox, not the dimensions of the insert. And we are talking about 1m (39.4 inches) long inserts which are generally the largest.
The hourly consumption of firewood ranges between 55 lbs and 70 lbs/h depending on the model, but in any case here the wood inserts are designed to make short fires and with a low load of wood.
stoveliker said:
Those are lengths, not volumes.

But when a firebox is bigger it can generally put out more heat per hour (or second if you adhere to the SI unit of (k)Watt).
Click to expand...
 
Some of these fireplaces sound more for show than heating. I was reading the manual for the Carbel and was surprised to see that they recommended burning 1 log at a time. You could load the FP30 full with 10 or 12 40cm splits loaded N/S. It is designed for heat.
 
Ok.
What I meant was that differences in output power are often due to differences in size of the firebox.

Are you saying all are the same size?


So all are at about 11 kW. Is the more efficient one smaller?
 
begreen said:
Some of these fireplaces sound more for show than heating. I was reading the manual for the Carbel and was surprised to see that they recommended burning 1 log at a time. You could load the FP30 full with 10-12. 40cm splits loaded N/S. It is designed for heat.
Click to expand...

But 37,000 BTU per hour is not strangely low for a 2 cu ft box?
 
The 3 models are of similar sizes, in Europe the inserts are designed this way and the burners do not last more than 2 hours. What do you want me to tell you?
11KW (37000Btu) is the nominal power, it is supposed that they can reach 14Kw.
That's why I'm looking at buying an American stove.
 
What is the burn duration when you load the firebox as full as possible (we call that stove Tetris). As in this pic.

Because if indeed they say to load one split every time, the surely the burn time is going to be short.

"American" burn times are reached when the stove is loaded to the gills. I.e. stuffed as full as possible.

[Hearth.com] Performances questions
 
204 / 5.000

Resultados de traducción​

When you fill it up to the gills for approximately 2.5 hours, then there is no more usable heat because in the inserts the fans are automatic and when they stop there is no more usable heat.
 
Well, if you burn through 2 cubic foot in 2.5 hours, you're burning awfully high and it should give out much more heat than the 11 kW.

Can you turn down the air?

I mean, the basic math is x volume of wood equates to y pounds of wood which equates to z BTUs put in the stove.
The burn control should allow you to spread those BTUs (okay, minus an efficiency factor, likely between 65 and 80 pct) over a range of hours. A 2 cu ft box should be able to last at least 6 hrs.

I don't know how they calculate the efficiency there, and the difference does not make sense for the same size firebox and same BTU output (11 kW) - so something is not right with those numbers.
 
On their web pages they say that the heated area is just over 1,100 square feet, this is a very small house for those sizes of inserts. If you have a 1,700 square foot house, then you need to burn high because without running fans there is no heat.The same thing happens to me with my Bodart&gonay and the efficiency they advertise must be equivalent to HLV.
 
The square footage is not that useful; it depends a lot on the level of insulation of the home, sun exposure (especially in Souther Europe) etc. etc.

My point was that 1. burning through 2 cubic foot in 2 hours does not make any sense. Burning to high also means putting a LOT of heat up the flue. I.e. efficiency will be lower than whatever is advertized.
and 2. (to the original question) that the differences in efficiency do not make sense given the same firebox size and same power output. This just does not compute.
 
It would need to be able to reach a constant power of 14/15kw for the coldest days and also be able to burn lower when it is not necessary in order to optimize firewood consumption.
 
European Burner said:
It would need to be able to reach a constant power of 14/15kw for the coldest days and also be able to burn lower when it is not necessary in order to optimize firewood consumption.
Click to expand...
You don't really need it to have such a large variance in output, just use less fuel or load less often. The only way to get such a large variation in output is to use a stove with catalyst. I'm not familiar with European options, but 14KW seems like a tall order for the inserts I do know of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stoveliker
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom