Print

[boyland]

Just an update for everyone, we have had been up to intertek testing 2 times trying and improving our designs. 

We are on the final round and expect to return sometime late February.

The Gasification will be nice as far as wood usage but I can tell you 2 of the prototypes are running to heat the production facility and the wood must be dry if it is not you will do a lot of cleaning.

I expect the Latest design to roll off the production lines by Mid March we expect to pass Phase 2 testing requirements by Mid March.

Just an update for anyone that is interested:
Blaine

[RSI]

Do you have any pictures? Sounds interesting.

I thought the EPA pretty much said the EPA phase2 rating was flawed and meaningless. That was excuse Heatsource1 used anyway when they went out of business.

Is it worth spending all the money on getting them certified if the EPA is going to be coming out with something new?

[Scott7m]

Do you have any pictures? Sounds interesting.

I thought the EPA pretty much said the EPA phase2 rating was flawed and meaningless. That was excuse Heatsource1 used anyway when they went out of business.

Is it worth spending all the money on getting them certified if the EPA is going to be coming out with something new?

 Ur right, I don't see why anyone would waste there time with the ever-changing regs

[martyinmi]

It has been my understanding that the methods will remain basically the same, its the calculations surrounding the methodology that will change. In other words, if a furnace tested at 99% before(we all know that's impossible), it will come back with a lower efficiency rating with the new calculations.

[Scott7m]

Marty,  Dave nyhof of nc told me at times his gt220 was making like 20% more btu than they were putting in the stove, that shows how bad the test was. 

[willieG]

i cant believe taht a stove can be any better than maybe 85 percent. What about you guys?

[RSI]

I have no idea how accurate the testing is but they use the lower heating value for them. (look it up, mostly used in Europe)
Using this method it is possible for the numbers to come out over 100%. I have heard that a normal gas furnace that is the low to mid 90% range is about 105% when tested that way.

[martyinmi]

Scott and willie,
   I'm with both of you guys on your points. I had a Heatsource1 salesman look me in the eye and tell me WITH A STRAIT FACE that their gasser was 102% efficient! I allowed him to speak for about 2 full minutes, and while he took a breath, I interrupted and asked him if anyone has ever actually bought his BS. He said that he didn't come up with the numbers,the EPA did, and he felt he was not misleading people by simply stating what the EPA had put in print. I interrupted him again and said "thanks for your time- I hope you know I'm not the only one who can see through the lies you are trying to sell. You will probably only get about 1% or less to believe that you actually believe what you are saying", then I walked away. I think I still have that literature around somewhere.

[willieG]

if you have a hot chimney you are losing efficiency. most stoves lose at least 20 to 30 (non gassers) percent up the chimney now if a gasser could cut that in half it would be 85 to 90 at best. and personally i would lean to the lower numbers.

also i think (maybe someone with a gasser that has had it in operation a full year could tell us from experience) that a gasser would need a lot more attention than one of our old blisters that is just a barrel in a barrel? i mean i like just taking a few ashes out monthly and checking the water level..and of couars adding more wood than a gasser but not having to do any special cleaning

[RSI]

All the efficiency numbers are stretched and twisted to be as high as possible by all of them. I try to avoid even mentioning any numbers.
As far as I am concerned it is just marketing and nothing more. Kind of like horsepower ratings they put on air compressors. They can get away with calling a 1-2hp motor 6hp.

[martyinmi]

Do you guys think that any of the European boilers designed for mass storage are as efficient(efficiency/emissions) as the EPA gassers? Many claim that they only make a couple gallons/year of ash, and they are burning 4-6 full cords/year. I wonder if they would be under the maximum lbs./hr. in the particulates emitted area if they ran continuously like our OWB's do. I'd bet their efficiencies would be right up there, but their emissions might be on the high side.

[boyland]

You guys understand efficiency and emissions are not the same?  They are not necessarily related.

Phase 2 standards are related to emissions. 

Anyway we will be there again in March, I fully expect the boiler the pass. 

[martyinmi]

Yes-
   You can have a very efficient boiler that can potentially kick out way more than the .32lbs/million btu of particulate matter. Phase 2 testing also used to involve efficiency until they realized their calculations were a bit far fetched. I was just fishing when I made that statement.

   What lab are you using to test your new gasser? Can we assume they've came up with some new methods that won't break any thermodynamic laws? And, when will you post your latest You-tube video?

[boyland]

We sir are testing at Intertek.

There are no boiler listed in Phase 2 government pages that show 102% or anything close to that.

We may post some videos once we are done. 

I am not total sure on your other comments.

[Scott7m]

Nc told me there stoves were over 110% efficient at times during there test lol


But, oh well