Kuuma wood gasification furnace?

[Como]

Excellent Questions

1) EPA current methodology has nothing to do with efficiencies. It's all about emmissions. This will change in the next iteration probably in the next year or so.

2) I dont know about that boiler maker's claim to efficiencies. Depends what he's measuring. Heat exchange ability? Combustion? other parameters? Buyer beware if they do not provide what they are measuring to and to what standards.

3) It is possible to attain close to 100% efficiencies (LHV). Some European boiler MFG are close to it. But in order to do so they have to power vent it since there is not enough heat loss for natural draft. Plus they need complex electronics and stack dehumidifier in order to work properly. They are also very expensive. So your overall efficiencies and ROI is not really what it should be. If we are talking about efficiencies in terms of how much heat is retained in the house there are 3 different tests to measure this: Stack Loss, Low-Heating Value (LHV), High Heating Value (HHV). Wood stoves uses primarily Stack loss method, while furnaces and boilers uses LHV & HHV. We state both in our literature. Also keep in mind that in these 2 last methodology 'jacket loss' is not included. It means if a furnace is 80% efficient LHV it probably is even more since there is always heat radiating from the furnace itself (not in the exchanger). And since this heat stays in the house... Bonus!

4) It is possible to burn wood appliances without *visible* smoke. The current EPA emission standard for wood stoves is no more than 7.6 gr/hr. This is accomplished over 4 burn cycle. Most of that smoke is on start up. Once your firebox is up to temp you will not see any smoke. The new EPA standard for wood stove will likely be 4.5 gr/hr while for furnaces and boilers it will likely be 4.5 gr/Megajoule (gr/million BTU).

5) You are right... Sq ft specifications for wood stove is a rule of thumb at best since there are too many variables to really provide a good indication. For furnaces and boilers it is a better indicator since its a forced air unit (or Hydro unit).

6) You are also correct. Current EPA testing for wood stoves requires cribbed dimensional BC Fir. Remember they are measuring emissions not efficiencies or BTU output. The new EPA legislation will hopefully change that.

7) Lab tests for certifications are done with a minimum of 4 tests which are averaged. This is done under ideal conditions. Therefore Lab burn times are not indicative of the 'real' world. We've obtained 19Hrs burn time for the Max Caddy in the lab. However, we state 8-12 Hrs in our marketing material. Again too many variables to define what burn time really is.

8) The OP title is a misnomer. Neither the Kuuma or the PSG Caddy lines are gasification furnaces.

The problem with wood or rather the beauty of it is it's a non-standard fuel... Unlike gas or oil, each load, each cycle, each log is different. Therefore the difficulty to establish consumer specs such as burn time, sq ft etc...

Hope this helps.

I did a lot of research including in the UK when I was there before going the route I did.

I have not gone ultra high efficiency because of all the costs getting that extra few percentage when I have so much available wood did not seem a good idea.

I do have a new Propane Boiler which vents with plastic, when I see a Wood Boiler manufacturer, or furnace, specifying plastic chimneys then I will believe some of the more outrageous numbers.

My wood Boilers are not in the building so losses are helpful but not countable, I hope to average 85%, a few less and I will not shed tears. But that is true gassification.

I am interested in the mechanics of very long burn time and high efficiencies. It just seems counter logical.

I thought the only way you could do this with wood is by using pellets or chips.

 

[stihly dan]

A window wouldn't make or break a deal for me, but I can sit and watch a fire for hours on end. It beats most of what's on the boob tube these days.

Garrett, here's a wild and crazy idea that I have no idea if it will work. How about a double paned window, regular stove glass for the inner window, and a glass with a one way mirror coating on the outside to reflect much of the heat back into the stove? If it works, you can pm me for an address to send the royalty checks to :cool2:

No Freaken way Steve. Have you been hanging out in my whiskey bottle? I $hit you not, I was thinking that same thing this weekend. I was going to send Garret an E-mail on this tonite. Boy would that have looked stupid, and pladgiaristic. Although, I would have had both pieces of glass ceramic, and used the see thru mirror, like on cop shows.

 

[Steve NW WI]

They say great minds think alike. Apparently so do average ones

 

[stihly dan]

But at the same time? GENIUS minds must think alike at the same time. Now stop thinking of my wife like that.

 

[Fyrebug]

8) The OP title is a misnomer. Neither the Kuuma or the PSG Caddy lines are gasification furnaces.

You don't have emissions of less than 1 gr/hr or over 99% combustion efficiency without gassifying the wood. However our's is not all at once, which is what makes it so unique... [/QUOTE]

Garret please stop with the near meaningless specs... I'm staring at a 32 page Max Caddy lab report not a 2 pager one. And lots of that info means nothing to the average consumer or worse yet, it can be misleading if not taken in its entirety. I dont quote volumetric flow rates, velocity, particulate catches etc... because it's near meaningless to an average consumer.

So is the the so called "combustion efficiencies". It is possible to achieve in a lab test 'combustion efficiencies' above 100% which we've done on numerous test and appliances. But really... in 'real' life this doesnt mean much. It is so much better to let your customers speak for yourself and carry the word of mouth rather than point out lab results where you and I might not even know the difference.

As far as what gasification is... if you remember your high school chemistry lab where you put strips of wood into a test tube, heated it and got gas out of it without combusting the wood, that is true gasification.

In time, this terms has come to mean a biomass (wood, pellet, chip) heater that has a separate combustion chamber typically with forced air to bring the temps well above what you would find in a regular furnace. This results in higher combustion temps & the advantage of this is the ability to burn less than ideal fuel. Drawback is of course a separate blower for combustion. This is used primarily for some outdoors wood boilers.

Both the PSG Caddy line and Kuuma does not use 'gasification' in either sense of the word. They use a 'secondary' burn combustion where the gases, oxygen and heat meet together to combust the gases and smoke.

Hope this helps in the terminology department. Now... let's all get back to our beers.

 

[Fyrebug]

I do have a new Propane Boiler which vents with plastic, when I see a Wood Boiler manufacturer, or furnace, specifying plastic chimneys then I will believe some of the more outrageous numbers.

The day when God decides to make all trees identical with the same density, BTU value, moisture content etc. And you remove all bark, cut each splits identically so that even under a microscope you would not be able to tell the difference... Then stack it the same each and every load and reload with a timer in hand... Then and only then will you see venting as you describe. Which means each log would be standardized in Energy, moisture etc.. just as propane, gas & oil are.

Until then people will be burning all kinds of stuff in their wood stoves/furnace/boiler including tires, old rubber boots, garbage and even sometimes well cured hardwood!

That is why you need venting that can take a beating...

You may want to research what is involved in testing for efficiencies for HHV, LHV and Stack Loss method and maybe you might change your mind.

Hopes this helps.

 

[stihly dan]

Ok, so my last wood stove after a 1/2 hr heating, when I looked thru the glass and saw black logs with no flame. But at the top of the stove was a massive tube of flames, was that not gasifying?

 

[Fyrebug]

Ok, so my last wood stove after a 1/2 hr heating, when I looked thru the glass and saw black logs with no flame. But at the top of the stove was a massive tube of flames, was that not gasifying?

Nope... Secondary burn. All EPA wood stoves have this and would never dream of calling it 'gasification'.

I guess you could argue the gases are being burned and then call it gasification. But at some point and not to split hair terms have to means something.

If we started to call seconday burn 'gasification' a lot of other folks would slam us pretty quick and for good reasons.

 

[stihly dan]

So how much more heat, or less fuel consumption are we talking about with gasification.

 

[Fyrebug]

So how much more heat, or less fuel consumption are we talking about with gasification.

This is where I will readily acknowledge I know very little about gasification processes. I've talked to some outdoor boiler mfg's and from what I could gather it helps in burning wood (or other fuels) that have a high moisture content or less than ideal.

I saw a really cool wood chip boiler demo where the guy was burning horse manure mixed with straw at 35% humidity. The secondary combustion chamber looked like it had a fire tornado going on!

Wasnt cheap but it burned cleanly with such high temps.

 

[stihly dan]

I saw a wood chip boiler like that. So its basicaly added air, with turbulance. I know moving air burns better. Did Hitler not have wood gasifacation cars back in the day? If so, it can't be that hard today.

 

[lampmfg]

Garret please stop with the near meaningless specs... I'm staring at a 32 page Max Caddy lab report not a 2 pager one. And lots of that info means nothing to the average consumer or worse yet, it can be misleading if not taken in its entirety. I dont quote volumetric flow rates, velocity, particulate catches etc... because it's near meaningless to an average consumer.

Why don't you post that test and let everyone decide for themselves. :hmm3grin2orange:
I don't think combustion efficiency or emissions is meaningless information.

 

[Fyrebug]

Why don't you post that test and let everyone decide for themselves. :hmm3grin2orange:
I don't think combustion efficiency or emissions is meaningless information.

Then provide a concise and easy to understand way, how a lab test for combustion efficiency works and why they should care.

I will gladly provide you with my test results the day you certify your stove to CSA B415 (or EPA). I believe we've had this conversation before.

 

[Fyrebug]

I saw a wood chip boiler like that. So its basicaly added air, with turbulance. I know moving air burns better. Did Hitler not have wood gasifacation cars back in the day? If so, it can't be that hard today.

I dont know about Hitler but I believe the French had something like that early in the past century. Looked like a small locomotive, as heavy as one and slow as mollasses. Wonder why it did not last?

 

[lampmfg]

Then provide a concise and easy to understand way, how a lab test for combustion efficiency works and why they should care.

I will gladly provide you with my test results the day you certify your stove to CSA B415 (or EPA). I believe we've had this conversation before.

It shows me that our furnace design is able to achieve nearly perfect combustion efficiency. The customers should care because - (Combustion Efficiency-is a measure of how efficiently a device consumes fuel. Ideally, combustion efficiency would be measured at 100%, meaning that the fuel was completely consumed. In practice, this level of combustion efficiency is impossible to achieve, but it's possible to come close. The lower the combustion efficiency, the less efficient the device is, making it expensive to run, wasteful of fuel, and harmful for the environment.)

Kind of like why someone should care that you certified a wood furnace using a EPA test for wood stoves.

 

[stihly dan]

opcorn:and the gloves are offopcorn:

 

[Fyrebug]

The lower the combustion efficiency, the less efficient the device is, making it expensive to run, wasteful of fuel, and harmful for the environment.)

Mmmmm... should re-check your facts. Think it over, research and re-post.

 

[stihly dan]

Where is krappie keith to otstir:up

 

[lampmfg]

Trusting this guy a little more then you but I could be wrong? Combustion Efficiency

 

[Fyrebug]

opcorn:and the gloves are offopcorn:

Are you goading me?!? :msp_scared:

Naw... They're only furnaces. Good thing we're not talking 'bout guns, politics or religion!

Garrett, all I'm sayin' is if you say our EPA rating is not valuable... Let's say I agree with you on this one. The same argument can be made with every little lab spec you bring to the table. At the end of the day they are good marketing tools. Why else would you bother to test your furnace anyway? Exactly... to quote some specs out of context so you can make more sales.

You know what is an even greater selling tool? Letting your customers brag about your product on your behalf. On this site the specs argument doesnt carry as much weight. Let's save it to bash our competitors who are not AS sponsors.

Otherwise it becomes a 'mine is bigger than yours' argument. (Another one you cant win BTW... :msp_w00t