Buttered info, LOL Come on now Spike you can do better than that.
Lets see now, what did you tell a fellow a few days ago who questioned some EPA data you posted?
"SOooooooooooo ..... Your saying that everybody should take "your" word for it over state testing and EPA testing"
Believe it or not I agreed with you then, and still do now, LOL
Let's be serious for a minute here.
do you think it would be fair that system "A"which is capable of say 150,000 BTU would be tested side by side with system "B" at say 100,000 BTU for TOTAL emissions? Even at equal amounts of cancergas output per BTU delivered the higher BTU unit would show higher cancergas per hour. SO if a person wanted to skew results all he would have to do is use a higher BTU capacity for the unit he wanted to look bad. Now to their credit our friends at the EPA did not do that dirty little trick and throttled the OWBs back to a output of 15,000 BTUs. I am not trying to psycho analyze the test but it would seem that since on off cycles make more pollutants per your sources that a test at 15,000 BTU would cause more pollution that one at say 30,000 thus I fail to see the buttering that would bias this test towards OWBs I see it the other way. Believe it or not I would like to see real info that is unbiased either way. I think more useful data would be pollutants per thousand BTUs delivered instead of totals?
50 outside and I am warm and comfy and haven't put wood in since yesterday and just cam out of a bath with free hot water, well almost free have to run them pumps. Sorry couldn't resist.