Traditional OWB manufacturers making gasifiers?

[gorbull]

I'm reposting this from a dying thread.

I’ve noticed more and more of the traditional O.W.B. manufacturers producing “gasifier” units now that they have secondary combustion chambers. As seen in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJkNm6517bg

Portage and Main Optimizer http://www.portageandmainboilers.com/woodgasification.html
Central Boiler E-Classic http://www.centralboiler.com/e-classic.html
Wood Doctor Converter http://wooddoctorfurnace.com/converter.html

I think almost every one of the OWB companies is now producing similar units. My question is, are these units really as efficient as the Orlans, Econoburns, Tarm, etc.. gasifiers or are they an entirely different beast?

One thing that puzzles me is that in the promotional videos they always seem to be throwing huge unsplit logs into huge fireboxes and I’m sure that runs contrary to the principles of running an efficient gasifier and economically managing fuel. Plus as far as I can tell they still wrap themselves in a water jacket.

Anyone know how well these units measure up?

 

[mark123]

I checked into the wood doctor converter and it does not operated under pressure, it is open to atmospheric pressure. As i understand it this is not as efficient as pressureized systems

 

[tom in maine]

They certainly are gasifiers, but the large standby and shell losses are the same as any other OWB. After watching the Portage video, I noticed that there seems to be minimal, if any, insulation on the back where the controls are.
They do work and certainly fit with some folk's needs, but I would much rather have a unit somewhere within the heated envelope of the building if at all possible.


My 2 cents worth.

 

[sdrobertson]

My 02 cents on OWB gassifiers....I think that they will work as designed as gassifiers but not as OWBs. I mean that all boilers do not like to idle for really long periods which is the way OWB's are designed to run. If you load the OWB with only enough wood to satisfy the heat demand and keep reloading them then they should work. The problem is that as American's we want a wood boiler that we only have to fill once or twice a day and then not worry about it. Free heat without the hassle of a indoor unit that needs to be filled and tended more. We want the qualities of a fossil fuel boiler without the tending time. Dry wood, loaded only for the BTU demand and it'll provide heat without the mess inside the house. I'd really like to hear from somebody that has one and burns it full tilt with storage in the house and then see how it performs.

I really liked my 6048 as I didn't have to split up the wood nor did I have to get a year ahead. Anything that I could lift I could throw into it and I would get heat. I only had to fill once or twice a day and it was pretty simple. Now I have to split my wood and stay ahead to make sure that the wood is dry and I fill the boiler every 3 to 4 hours on the days I'm burning. All in all, I have about the same amount of time involved with both systems considering splitting up halve the wood amount but I'm not smoking anyone out and I have roughly the same amount invested without considering the actual building my system is placed in.

 

[logjammed]

I have only used the E-classic in my wood burning career. Overall satified after learing burning techniques. Keep in mind the E-classic does not idle its a low burn (upper chamber forced air),high burn (lower chamber smoke ignition and upper chamber forced air) , and off. this is the units cycle, so for shoulder season single firing too high limit temp is enough for heat and dhw for 24hrs. 450 gallons of storage built in and transfered for system re-charge. a lot of guys here talk about wood consumption, but this is all i know and i love when the oil truck drives right past the house. It's cleaner than wood stoves around me and that was my major concern going in.

 

[shagy]

I think its very hard to tell how the indoor and outdoor gasification compare. All you hear is hearsay. The EPA has a list of tested stoves that are outdoor furnaces. Econoburn, is the only indoor stove on the list that tested with the method 28 test and failed miserably (less than 30% efficient on a 8hr burn) Indoor stoves do not list test results or test procedure. WHY ? I think all manufactures should be required to list such. We live in a age that we the consumer enjoy the technical data and can be easily informed

 

[dzook]

The criteria for the phase 2 tests were formulated with the help of OWB manufactures. I have spoken with the EPA and with different EPA wood boiler test labs. The tests may give good results in an OWB but the same test may perform bad in a gasser.

see this link for the actual test criteria. (broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf)

It is long but it will shed light on what the test is all about. The phase 2 test is voluntary. If you pass you can get listed on the EPA site (broken link removed to http://epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html) after parting with 10-15K per boiler for the test at one of the 4 independent labs approved by EPA in the US. Each boiler size eve nof the same model must be checked which is different that the safety tests UL 391 where the larger size can be checked and the approval can be used in a similar model of smaller size. A state or area may require this "voluntary test" to be able to sell in a particular area. the test and "certification" and it is only good until EPA phases it out like they did for phase 1

quoted from the test document...

Qualification of Phase 2 emission level qualified models will end 5 years after the date of the EPA letter acknowledging qualified status and use of Program and use of Program permanent labels and hangtags on these models must be discontinued for units manufactured after that date. Partner may choose to re-qualify a model per the Program qualifying process, or may seek a waiver (see Partnership Agreement Attachment 1).

Effective Date and Duration of Agreement
This Agreement will become effective when signed by both Partner and EPA, and may be amended by mutual written agreement. Partner and EPA understand that this Agreement is wholly voluntary and may be terminated in writing by either Partner or EPA at any time and for any reason with no penalty. EPA may terminate the Agreement, including the authorization to use qualifying labels and hangtags if Partner fails to act in accordance with any part of this Agreement, including its attachments. Unless amended or terminated sooner, the terms of the Agreement will remain in effect until the termination of Phase 2 of the Program by EPA.

...end quote

It is very expensive to get the test and with EPA able to terminate the program or phase it into new one, requiring a different standard I can see how the list of qualified boilers would remain low.


Most gassifiers do not want dimensioned lumber to be burned because during the course of the burn it can cover the nozzel especially if all the wood is dimentioned as per the phase 2 test. Some manufactures specifically say not to burn dimensioned wood in their manuals. The epa phase 2 test uses dimensioned oak lumber with 3/4 x 1 1/2 spacers between 4x4 lengths and is stacked as per the document.

The test also allows a coal bed to be started before the actual smoke and particles are measured with a pre test burn cycle with 2x2 pieces as recommended see section 12.4.1

Once the coal bed has reached its target value then the test begins after loading the dimensioned lumber.

Take time to read over the actual test and think how many people ever use their OWB like this. A gassifier you can see could fail with this test. If you stack wood like the test says in a typical gasser firebox chamber the fire really will not burn as the manufacturer has designed.

If an appliance is made for split seasoned wood of a certain size the test should be conducted with the wood the manufacturer has designed it to be used for. The lighting phase should also be as recommended by the manufacturer. Otherwise what good is the test.

Think about it, most of the smoke in burning is made at start up. this test allows the boiler to have a pre test burn to make a coal bed and the coals raked out evenly before the actual test is done.

Some of the gasser manufactures are looking at the phase 2 tests but more from the standpoint of the free publicity of being listed as an approved boiler etc. this is based on information coming with discussions I have had with the test labs.

Bottom line, in my opinion a one size fits all test just doesn't give accurate results. when we compare OWB, including the efficient ones, and indoor gassers its kind of like comparing as they say apples and oranges.

 

[ISeeDeadBTUs]

Ok SalesManDudeFromSveded . . .

How long you been making these units and who'd ya buy the rights from?

Oh, and why are there no women in the video?

 

[WoodNotOil]

I think in general these OWB manuf. are just scrambling to come up with something that won't be banned and those using them are participating in R&D. That is not to say they won't work as designed. I will try to get some listed in my database. So far I just have one model of the E-classic in there. It would be great to get some comments and reviews on them though. I have heard of some issues with E-classic and it would be nice to document those problems and how the company is dealing with them. As for regulations, I have added several states to my regulations list and found it interesting to read each states rules or proposed rules and see how they differ. You can check it out at my site in my sig if interested.

 

[shagy]

WOW..... Some response to post! My point once again was.. The public has very little info to go on other than hearsay as far as testing. Are the outdoors guys "scrambling" to come up with something better or are they trying to improve on their product ? Take a look out the window ..Do you see many model T's running down the road? After all they did work
The next response has me scratching my head? I would thank you for outlining the method 28 test procedure. I happen to notice you didn't outline the test procedure for indoor stoves. I would willing to bet most on this site would enjoy the chance to read the testing info on their favorite stove .
I do believe if you talk with your friends at the EPA they will inform you all wood stoves have a procedure for testing with dimensional wood. I know for a fact that the Lopi VT Castings type indoor wood stoves are tested when hot to start and use dimensional wood. While this is not the real world a standard is set and a guide is in place.
You stated it was very expensive to test furnaces. If a company wants to sell stoves I think that is money well spent. If I were running a company and had states adapting the test as their guidelines I would be dishing out the cash.I was told it cost closer to $50,000. for the test but so be it. In our world everything cost money if you want to move forward.
I just was stating that Econoburn was the only inside furnace listed on the EPA site. Just a observation. That company as you stated must have volunteered to do this test. I can see why as they tend to market towards and against the outdoor furnaces. As stated the Method 28 test is a 8hr test. It is easy to see how the test was not be in favor of the Econoburn. If you try to stretch out to a 8hr burn with a small firebox you just plain run out of wood long before the 8hrs is up.BTU's per hr will drop fast. If they based the test on a 2-4 hr run the results would have been closer to the 150,000btu's ?advertised of the Model 150 tested instead of the 30,000btus area.
Note all the furnaces on the EPA site are gassers.
But back to the point of all this ........ The outdoor guys have a standard and test procedure they make public. Love it or hate it. It's more than the inside guys are letting out. WHY I would love have this info for all to see. Don't we deserve to be informed????