Looking for wood furnace
- Thread starter iowa
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
brenndatomu
Hey you woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!
I'd like 1 dozen, umm, let's see, I'll go with the Christmas tree shaped ones!
(if ya run out of those, the wreath ones will be fine) :msp_biggrin:
MNfarmer
ArboristSite Guru
Keith no longer works for Yukon and in fact no longer lives in Palisade. He moved south sometime this summer so that rules out the idea he is working for Lamppa Manufacturing as well. I'm sure if he was here and reading this thread it would turn into another EPA thread if anyone remembers that one!! :sword:
laynes69
Addicted to ArboristSite
You Kuuma boys seem pretty happy with your furnaces, can't beat that. We experience the same thing with our Caddy, it's just not computer controlled. Our Caddy takes far less wood than our old furnace, but burns longer, cleaner and produces more overall heat. Our flue temps are low, the chimney top when burning looks like a gas furnace's exhaust and the house stays warm. Anyway you slice it, having a clean burning furnace makes a huge difference. We experienced it a few years back now and wouldn't have I any other way. It's amazing how much heat these small fireboxes can produce. When I look at the size of our home, it's hard to imagine a few splits will heat the place but it happens.
lampmfg
ArboristSite.com Sponsor
I'll never forget that one. :msp_scared:
brenndatomu
Hey you woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!
Musta got bored chasin those lil ole crappies around MN, decided to go to Fla. get 'im some biggins, something with teeth maybe! :msp_scared:
Yah, he's probably lurking on here under a new user name! If he is, he's gotta be ready to pop about now! Go all azzhat on everybody...:hmm3grin2orange:
Gotta love it, I kinda miss him! I talked to him on the phone a couple times at Yukon, very knowledgeable! Didn't want to get him started on politics if ya had something else you needed to be doin anytime soon!
Last edited:
Good grief, it was a hot one.
One thing about Keith... You could never say he was boring...
He's not changed. Saw a thread on Facebook about him. He knows how to stir a hornet's nest allright...
Before you buy any kind of furnace from any MFG you should first determine your BTU load, insulation level etc... You dont want to undersize or oversize. You do it right you save money. BTW though I am deeply biased (get paid to be...) there are many good products out there besides what Kuuma and PSG despite what we tell you :msp_scared:. Do your homework and it will pay itself out in the long run.
Now If you can stomach a sales pitch... (I pay AS for the privilege after all)
Depending on the size of your house you may want to consider the Caddy or Max Caddy and since Garret at Kuuma keeps challenging me on numbers here we go.... (BTW the following does not imply anyone else product is inferior, think of it as a check list of what is important to you. )
| $4,595 | $3,900 + Shipping | |
| $3,269 | $3,900 + Shipping | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| 1,780 CFM | 465 CFM | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | No | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | No | |
| 25" | 17" | |
| 4.2 | 3.1 | |
| 90 Lbs | ? | |
| 85% LHV | 79.5% LHV | |
| .316 AVG certified | .03 (1 test uncertified) | |
| Limited Lifetime | 25 Years | |
| 2 Years | 90 Days | |
| No | Yes | |
| 1 to Lifetime depending | None | |
| CSA B415.1-10 | Tested to CSA, no certifications | |
| Door with Glass & Air Wash | Yes | No |
[td]Max Caddy[/td]
[td]Vapor Fire 200[/td] [td]Retail[/td] [td]Retail without Blower (Add on)[/td] [td]Stand Alone with Oi/Electric[/td] [td]Oil Burner Option[/td] [td]Electric Element Option[/td] [td]Water Tank Pre-Heater Option[/td] [td]Fresh Air Option[/td] [td]Cold Air Return Right/Left/Top[/td] [td]Blower[/td] [td]6 speed self adusting Blower[/td] [td]Thermostatically Controlled[/td] [td]Blower Speed Controlled By Probe[/td] [td]AC Ready[/td] [td]Max Log Lenght[/td] [td]Firebox Dimension cu Ft[/td] [td]Loading Capacity[/td] [td]Optimum Efficiency[/td] [td]Average Emmission g/MJ[/td] [td]Warranty[/td] [td]Warranty Electrical[/td] [td]Return furnace for repairs[/td] [td]Moving Parts Warranty[/td] [td]Emmissions Certifications[/td]
The Caddy is similar in sizes and specs to the Vapor Fire 200 and retails with blower at $3,699
Last edited:
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
Are those specs comparing the max caddy or the caddy, to the 200. Because the retail price you gave seems to have a $900 discrepancy.
lampmfg
ArboristSite.com Sponsor
This is fun because the actual VF-200 test results were as follows:
6/12/10-Medium Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 84.4%, Combustion Efficiency 98.1%, G/MJ .01, G/Hr .45
6/13/10-Low Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 86.3%, Combustion Efficiency 98.9%, G/MJ .02, G/Hr .65
8/04/10-High Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 82.4%, Combustion Efficiency 99.4%, G/MJ .02, G/Hr 1.0
Let's compare apples to apples and see your signed test results (even is you just want to show us your best one). We have all 4 test burns for the VF-200 that we had done on our website.
The first test you looked at was actually for our larger VF-100. It was just headed wrong and the correct information is right about the test date and time.
6/12/10-Medium Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 84.4%, Combustion Efficiency 98.1%, G/MJ .01, G/Hr .45
6/13/10-Low Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 86.3%, Combustion Efficiency 98.9%, G/MJ .02, G/Hr .65
8/04/10-High Burn LHV Overall Efficiency 82.4%, Combustion Efficiency 99.4%, G/MJ .02, G/Hr 1.0
Let's compare apples to apples and see your signed test results (even is you just want to show us your best one
). We have all 4 test burns for the VF-200 that we had done on our website.The first test you looked at was actually for our larger VF-100. It was just headed wrong and the correct information is right about the test date and time.
Nope... "Testing for emissions and efficiency for model VaporFire VF200 Solid Fuel Furnace" Letter report G100009193MID-005.2
lampmfg
ArboristSite.com Sponsor
Look down about a paragraph were it states -Results for efficiency and emissions for model VF100. They messed up at the top and it's something that I supposed we could have changed if we are being extra technical but were honest guys up here in Tower, MN. :msp_smile:
“There are lies, damn lies and statistics” Mark Twain
Good ole’ Mark Twain, I think he knew more about wood furnaces than we do!
Garret, you cannot possibly tell me that if both you & I made dump trucks and you somehow invented one that would get 65 miles per gallons that would wouldn’t take advantage of boasting about it. You would make sure you went to EPA to certify those numbers then you would plaster that info with the EPA logo on all your marketing material.
I know for a fact you would do so because... you already do it! You went to a lab and did 2 test (for certification you need a minimum of 4 or more), then you use the best results from one of the test (unlike us who must use the weighted average of multiple test (8 in our case) with and without blowers) to boast how good your products are. So please, spare me...
For the rest of you whose eyes are glazing about this hair splitting, here is what it means in real life...
Q&A
What’s the fuss all about?
EPA is an emission testing certification (pollution). In order to reduce your emissions you have to get rid of them. In order to do so you burn them (ie you burn the smoke). The advantage of this is it gives you a cleaner burn (no creosote or very little), better efficiencies since now you burn all the fuel.
Those MFG who cries “No Fair, EPA testing is for Wood stoves not for furnace” are... jealous. EPA states for wood stoves you cannot emit more than 7.6 grams per hour of emission. Think about it, this is very easy to pass. You design a wood stove that can only burn a match stick and you immediately pass! However this gets more and more complicated the bigger the firebox gets. You basically have the same standard if you have a wood stove that burn a stick at a time than if you designed one that can burn a cord at a time! Eventually the physics of it become impossible.
That is why the dump truck analogy is very much valid. We’ve done close to the impossible. So please, let me brag about it if you don’t mind.
The new CSA standard remedies this as the results are stated in grams per MegaJoules (or volume of pollution by energy released) which is more flexible and adapts to the firebox dimension.
In real life what does it mean?
The matter of the fact the difference between 1 grams per hour to 5 or 6 grams per hours in real life burning is insignificant. Burning wood in a lab has nothing to do with what real people do in real life.
Lab burning is done with individuals who have decades of experience burning wood everyday in a lab setting. They must follow a strict and tedious protocol, weight and measure moisture content of every single piece of wood. It’s part science, art, lots of experience and a dash of voodoo in order to squeeze the best possible results for the customer (ie the MFG).
You and I would blow these tests out with improper start up procedure, a semi-moist log, improper installations and many other variables.
So EPA/CSA certification and MFG claims of low emissions and efficiencies mean nothing?
Actually, a MFG who bothers to go through all this fuss must spend an awful lot of time in design, testing and prototyping in order to get those results. In real life, those high-efficiencies furnaces (I’ll put Kuuma in that category) will still outperform anything else in the market.
As long as you burn dry wood, these types of appliances will burn the smoke, produce higher efficiencies and longer burn time.
I hope these clarified things somewhat.
Good ole’ Mark Twain, I think he knew more about wood furnaces than we do!
Garret, you cannot possibly tell me that if both you & I made dump trucks and you somehow invented one that would get 65 miles per gallons that would wouldn’t take advantage of boasting about it. You would make sure you went to EPA to certify those numbers then you would plaster that info with the EPA logo on all your marketing material.
I know for a fact you would do so because... you already do it! You went to a lab and did 2 test (for certification you need a minimum of 4 or more), then you use the best results from one of the test (unlike us who must use the weighted average of multiple test (8 in our case) with and without blowers) to boast how good your products are. So please, spare me...
For the rest of you whose eyes are glazing about this hair splitting, here is what it means in real life...
Q&A
What’s the fuss all about?
EPA is an emission testing certification (pollution). In order to reduce your emissions you have to get rid of them. In order to do so you burn them (ie you burn the smoke). The advantage of this is it gives you a cleaner burn (no creosote or very little), better efficiencies since now you burn all the fuel.
Those MFG who cries “No Fair, EPA testing is for Wood stoves not for furnace” are... jealous. EPA states for wood stoves you cannot emit more than 7.6 grams per hour of emission. Think about it, this is very easy to pass. You design a wood stove that can only burn a match stick and you immediately pass! However this gets more and more complicated the bigger the firebox gets. You basically have the same standard if you have a wood stove that burn a stick at a time than if you designed one that can burn a cord at a time! Eventually the physics of it become impossible.
That is why the dump truck analogy is very much valid. We’ve done close to the impossible. So please, let me brag about it if you don’t mind.
The new CSA standard remedies this as the results are stated in grams per MegaJoules (or volume of pollution by energy released) which is more flexible and adapts to the firebox dimension.
In real life what does it mean?
The matter of the fact the difference between 1 grams per hour to 5 or 6 grams per hours in real life burning is insignificant. Burning wood in a lab has nothing to do with what real people do in real life.
Lab burning is done with individuals who have decades of experience burning wood everyday in a lab setting. They must follow a strict and tedious protocol, weight and measure moisture content of every single piece of wood. It’s part science, art, lots of experience and a dash of voodoo in order to squeeze the best possible results for the customer (ie the MFG).
You and I would blow these tests out with improper start up procedure, a semi-moist log, improper installations and many other variables.
So EPA/CSA certification and MFG claims of low emissions and efficiencies mean nothing?
Actually, a MFG who bothers to go through all this fuss must spend an awful lot of time in design, testing and prototyping in order to get those results. In real life, those high-efficiencies furnaces (I’ll put Kuuma in that category) will still outperform anything else in the market.
As long as you burn dry wood, these types of appliances will burn the smoke, produce higher efficiencies and longer burn time.
I hope these clarified things somewhat.
Max Caddy. But I just figured out I have it backward. I should have compared the Caddy to the VP200.
However, we still look good. We're about the same price with the Max Caddy and VP200 when you the the VP shipping into account.
We look even better with the Max Caddy versus the VP100
lampmfg
ArboristSite.com Sponsor
We posted every single test that we had done on our website. We are small and the testing was very expensive. When I say small I'm not lying when I say that my dad paid himself poverty level wages until the last 3-4 years. We just wanted facts to prove that we manufacture the BEST indoor wood furnace on the market.
Here are the number on the front page of our website:
.45 Gr/HR. Emissions
.01 Gr/MJ. Emissions
99.4% Combustion Efficiency
84% Overall Efficiency
99% Smokeless Burns
For you to say we just posted the best is not correct. Otherwise I could have posted 86.3% overall efficiency which is > than the 85% on your website.
I told my dad a few times to do the EPA wood stove testing and you saw his response from last night.
P.S. The signed test numbers don't lie especially when we have to take everyone's word on their numbers and don't have test results that everyone can compare.
Here are the number on the front page of our website:
.45 Gr/HR. Emissions
.01 Gr/MJ. Emissions
99.4% Combustion Efficiency
84% Overall Efficiency
99% Smokeless Burns
For you to say we just posted the best is not correct. Otherwise I could have posted 86.3% overall efficiency which is > than the 85% on your website.
I told my dad a few times to do the EPA wood stove testing and you saw his response from last night.
P.S. The signed test numbers don't lie especially when we have to take everyone's word on their numbers and don't have test results that everyone can compare.
Last edited:
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
Props on your ability to stay cool and collected, not knocking anyones product to promote yours. Crappie Keith could have used some of that ability. And I liked him. Are you on the sponsor board at the top of the page? I haven't seen it.
I'm a sponsor but there's different levels. I dont have a logo at the top of the page.
iowa
Addicted to ArboristSite
There's a few "no's" in that list above that needs to be changed to "yes". My kuuma has a water preheat and uses a thermostat. Also I think your cfm on the fan rating is off. This has a variable speed drive fan. Up to 1200 cfm.
A lot of the other stuff is useless IMHO. Who wants to burn oil, gas, etc? Isn't your unit an add-on to a gas furnace in existence? I'm here to burn wood. Screw gas and oil!
A lot of the other stuff is useless IMHO. Who wants to burn oil, gas, etc? Isn't your unit an add-on to a gas furnace in existence? I'm here to burn wood. Screw gas and oil!
Last edited:
brenndatomu
Hey you woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!
But if it is not an add-on situation, like mine, most insurance co's require gas/oil/electric as your "primary" heat. Not to mention what would I do if we're away for a couple days and didn't have the oil burner? The multi-fuel furnace was just the most elegant solution for me.
BTW, I plan to burn VERY little oil!
Garret, I went with the info on your web site and installation Manual. If any of my info is incorrect let me know and I'll adjust.
Wood/Oil/Electric combos are good for new home construction or if you dont want to be bothered with 2 furnaces or if you dont have the room for 2 furnaces.
Similar threads
