Long Burn vs Efficiently

[Oxford]

Good luck, Chris. If you make him really angry, he'll take a break from refolding his tinfoil hat and shoveling snow in his underwear while mumbling about the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati long enough to consult his ASCII character chart so he can cuss you and get it past the filters. Been there.

I swore I was done responding to, as Chris memorably put it, pseudoscientific twaddle, but to again point out the selective nature of what's being posted, the entire quote from chimneysweeponline is as follows:

Although a low emissions weight can improve a given stove's Extraction Efficiency score, the total amount of particulate emissions produced by today's EPA approved woodstoves is so small that the affect of particulate emissions on the overall heating efficiency score is negligable. Thus, even a model with an unusually low Emissions rating doesn't necessarily score a high Heating Efficiency rating.

And the example that follows is:

Consider the two models you mention: the 1.2 gram/hr difference would lighten the total weight of emissions from the cleaner-burning stove by about 10 grams at the end of an 8-hour test burn. Most likely, those 10 grams would be found in the ash remaining in the firebox, eliminating any advantage in Extraction Efficiency. Even if the 10 grams weren't found in the ashes, a difference of 10 grams of particulates from a 40 lb. load of wood would only amount to a .06% advantage in Extraction Efficiency, which would have virtually no effect on the overall Heating Efficiency score.

The two models being compared are two EPA stoves, not an EPA stove and something else. Pretending that either of these statements is applicable in the false comparison at hand- modern EPA stove vs. rootin', tootin', pollutin' stove built the way God and the Framers of the Constitution intended- is disingenuous at best and more accurately an outright lie.

Since the Cedar River Bloviator only remembers saying things that he says he said, not that he actually did say, stand by for used oats in 5, 4, 3....

 

[Whitespider]

How does any of that change what this says??

"Thus, even a model with an unusually low Emissions rating doesn't necessarily score a high Heating Efficiency rating."

Why are you reading more into it than what I'm saying??
It's a straight-forward, totally simplistic, face-value statement... no comparison of any sort... no hidden meaning or agenda... no manipulation of fact... not an insinuation... I'm not even trying to make it applicable to any particular single model, or even a single type, of wood stove.

"Combustion efficiency does not automatically equal heating efficiency."

That's it... that's all it says... not one damn thing more than that.
If you read more into it... well... the problem is, and always has been, at your end... certainly not mine.
*

 

[Vermonster]

Good luck, Chris. If you make him really angry, he'll take a break from refolding his tinfoil hat and shoveling snow in his underwear while mumbling about the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati long enough to consult his ASCII character chart so he can cuss you and get it past the filters. Been there.

I swore I was done responding to, as Chris memorably put it, pseudoscientific twaddle, but to again point out the selective nature of what's being posted, the entire quote from chimneysweeponline is as follows:

Although a low emissions weight can improve a given stove's Extraction Efficiency score, the total amount of particulate emissions produced by today's EPA approved woodstoves is so small that the affect of particulate emissions on the overall heating efficiency score is negligable. Thus, even a model with an unusually low Emissions rating doesn't necessarily score a high Heating Efficiency rating.

And the example that follows is:

Consider the two models you mention: the 1.2 gram/hr difference would lighten the total weight of emissions from the cleaner-burning stove by about 10 grams at the end of an 8-hour test burn. Most likely, those 10 grams would be found in the ash remaining in the firebox, eliminating any advantage in Extraction Efficiency. Even if the 10 grams weren't found in the ashes, a difference of 10 grams of particulates from a 40 lb. load of wood would only amount to a .06% advantage in Extraction Efficiency, which would have virtually no effect on the overall Heating Efficiency score.

The two models being compared are two EPA stoves, not an EPA stove and something else. Pretending that either of these statements is applicable in the false comparison at hand- modern EPA stove vs. rootin', tootin', pollutin' stove built the way God and the Framers of the Constitution intended- is disingenuous at best and more accurately an outright lie.

Since the Cedar River Bloviator only remembers saying things that he says he said, not that he actually did say, stand by for used oats in 5, 4, 3....

Cedar River Bloviator! LOL! Used oats... too funny. I was wondering when someone would actually cause him to shut the **** up. Nicely done Chris and Oxford.

 

[Whitespider]

Look again Vermonster, that post didn't come from Chris-PA.

Oh... and Oxford,
As far as I can remember, the only time I got angry was when someone here attacked my child-rearing decisions... nearly three years ago. There ain't much else anyone could post on an internet board that would get me "angry"... life's just too sort for that.
*

 

[Oxford]

Huh. I guess the time about a week ago where you figured out a way to weasel a response that included a carefully disguised profanity inviting me to perform an anatomical impossibility- you remember, that time- was done in the spirit of friendly exchange of ideas. You remember, the one where the moderators called you to heel:

"You won't be banned but you will receive a warning with points toward a ban. I don't have a clue what the argument is about but there will be no language as you just posted. Another post like that and it will be some time off."

And then you twisted your hatbrim and scuffed your toe and said you were sorry, then went right back to pulling the wings off flies? It's deleted now, or I'd be glad to quote it for you. Must have been my imagination.

You absolutely are implying, insinuating, and applying to one particular type of stove, and anyone with half a functioning brain can see it, no matter how much you say otherwise. The only person who has said this (emphasis yours):

"Combustion efficiency does not automatically equal heating efficiency."

is you, and I believe that's what you call a circular reference, where you use something you made up as the underlying support for some more stuff you make up. Since you have been fond of blowing about "all other things being equal" in this discussion, usually to obfuscate and mislead, this is actually a statement where it applies. Since, in the example given in the full quote of the text (cited in my earlier post), the extraction efficiencies are so low as to be practically equal, the remaining component of the equation, heat transfer, can dramatically effect the aggregate number, what is being presented as Heating Efficiency. This makes sense. If the heat is transferred better to the space, it's more Heat Efficient, at least by the definition at chimneysweeponline, no offense to them. If the extraction efficiencies are dramatically different- like for example between a "smoke dragon" and an efficient EPA stove, then that component is significant in the aggregate. By the way, anybody who says they can "tell" when a stove is burning cleanly using only the naked eye is kidding themselves, me included.

Consider: two identical EPA stoves, perhaps manufactured by Pacific Energy. One is installed as intended, capacity matched to load, in the space to be heated, with correct draft and glass front open to the space, used as a source of radiant heat, and operated according to the manufacturer's instructions. Owner is happy and warm, perhaps the same thing. The other is heavily modified- completely enclosed in sheet metal, firebrick removed, mass amounts of air blown over it- and installed in a basement without benefit of even a cursory attempt to match the appliance to the load. The owner, in addition to being an insufferable ingrate, is completely unsatisfied with the result. What's different? Heat transfer, but is that the stoves's fault? Of course, it's not the install, the modifications, or the general asininity of the installer/modifier. It must be the EPA and their unconstitutional regulations.

 

[Whitespider]

You remember, the one where the moderators called you to heel:
And then you twisted your hatbrim and scuffed your toe and said you were sorry

Say what?? I don't remember that apology.
As I specifically remember it, I replied to the moderator...
"Understood... no complaints."
...and nothing more than that.... nothing more‼
Must be selective (or wishful) memory on your part.

But I do have a question... what you're posting isn't a "circular reference"??

addendum: I almost forgot... in that other thread, where I suggested a way for you to entertain yourself, had nothing to do with anger... but it was a response to a post from you that was far from anything "in the spirit of friendly exchange of ideas." L-O-L
*

 

[Oxford]

I didn't mean to be friendly, and I hope nobody is under the impression that I was. I certainly wish I had thought to save that particular exchange under separate cover, so that other participants could judge for themselves as to your emotional state, but oh well. And you are certainly correct- you did not apologize. My mistake for characterizing it as such. I should have known that being infallible, you would have no need for that particular ability.

I feel sorry for any and everyone who has to deal with you in any capacity anywhere. I can only imagine what you must be like in person, although I suppose it is a testament to the innate good nature of the average person that you aren't constantly hospitalized, so perhaps you serve a useful purpose in that regard. Your constant, apparently endless, stream of know-it-all BS on any and every subject makes participating in any discussion in which you also participate a chore at best, but if nobody reminds the world at large that you, as self-proclaimed Emperor of the Truth, are going about without clothes, you and your amen chorus of nitwits take over and eliminate any hint of actual fact from every discussion. The moderators don't seem to care, and in fact it probably makes the site money so why should they? I think it's a shame, but apparently my opinion is in the minority.

 

[Vermonster]

I didn't mean to be friendly, and I hope nobody is under the impression that I was. I certainly wish I had thought to save that particular exchange under separate cover, so that other participants could judge for themselves as to your emotional state, but oh well. And you are certainly correct- you did not apologize. My mistake for characterizing it as such. I should have known that being infallible, you would have no need for that particular ability.

I feel sorry for any and everyone who has to deal with you in any capacity anywhere. I can only imagine what you must be like in person, although I suppose it is a testament to the innate good nature of the average person that you aren't constantly hospitalized, so perhaps you serve a useful purpose in that regard. Your constant, apparently endless, stream of know-it-all BS on any and every subject makes participating in any discussion in which you also participate a chore at best, but if nobody reminds the world at large that you, as self-proclaimed Emperor of the Truth, are going about without clothes, you and your amen chorus of nitwits take over and eliminate any hint of actual fact from every discussion. The moderators don't seem to care, and in fact it probably makes the site money so why should they? I think it's a shame, but apparently my opinion is in the minority.

No, your opinion is not in the minority, at least with those of us who use more than just the reptilian portion of the brain. I whole heartedly agree that the mods should deal with this maniacal case study just as they have done with 066blaster et al.

 

[kodiak]

... As far as I can remember, the only time I got angry was when someone here attacked my child-rearing decisions... nearly three years ago...

Was that the time when you weren't paying close enough attention to your young son, he came into the drop zone, the tree nearly hits him and you then went on to deny how any of that was your fault? Or were you talking about some other instance??

 

[cmsmoke]

LOL... Spoken like a true believer.

First of all, the "fuel" secondary combustion is intended to burn is not the "volatiles", secondary combustion is intended to burn particulate matter the primary burn leaves unconsumed during combustion of the "volatiles".

You believe (or assume) that the only way to make a fire burn "clean" is with some sort of secondary combustion activated by some sort of secondary air supply... when your campfire example shows just the opposite. The reason a campfire will look to be burning clean (without smoke) is simply because it is. A campfire pretty much has an unlimited supply of air (oxygen), and when it gets hot enough... well... no magic, it achieves closer to complete combustion.
So, does that mean the campfire is burning as clean as your stove?? The answer ain't a simple yes or no. When both are at the "no smoke" stage I would bet the difference ain't all that great... but the secondary combustion stove is designed to get there faster, meaning it would certainly be "cleaner" over the complete fuel load combustion process.

A "clean", smoke-free burn does not require secondary combustion activated by a secondary air supply... given enough heat and oxygen primary combustion is more than capable. The issue was never that an older, well designed stove couldn't achieve "clean" burn, the issue was people ran them poorly causing "dirty" burn... and yes, there was also cheap, poorly designed stoves (and there still is). I'm not saying the older, well designed stoves burned as super clean as the newer secondary burn stoves are capable of when run perfectly... but much like the campfire, when both are at the "no smoke" stage I would bet the difference ain't all that great. The newer stoves are designed to get there faster and make a "dirty" burn less likely... they make it less likely an idiot can screw-it-up. And don't forget, the current EPA test procedures allow a stove to fail the low burn test... your fancy, new-fangled stove may not be as clean as you believe when it's stopped down to low setting.
*

Secondary burning of the volatiles does help burn the particulates. Particulates are not fuel as you imply. They are dust, ash or solids left behind. My point was a clean looking fire does not mean it is low on particulates. My stove is never stopped down as you say. Remember the thermostatic spring? The stove is very hot before the primary air closes. There is more than enough secondary air to support that combustion stage. When the secondary starts to fall off and the stove starts to cool down, the primary air automatically opens.
I'm sorry you couldn't pass the test with your other stove.

 

[Whitespider]

No, your opinion is not in the minority...

Hmmmmm........ I would question how you come to that conclusion, considering the number of members here vs. how many have actually called me out.
Maybe a poll?? What'da ya' think??
Heck, I ain't afraid of it... you can even decide what the question will be as long as I get to make-up just one of the possible answers.
*

 

[cmsmoke]

Wait till I call my Bookie!

 

[Whitespider]

Was that the time when you weren't paying close enough attention to your young son, he came into the drop zone, the tree nearly hits him and you then went on to deny how any of that was your fault?

Well, that was one of a string of three... although, your selective memory is a bit skewed.
It wasn't the "tree" that near hit him, and I never denied all fault.
In fact, I'd ask that you to point-out where I've ever claimed to be immune to the pitfalls intrinsic to humanity.
*

 

[Whitespider]

Wait till I call my Bookie!

Do me a favor?? L-O-L
Let me know what the odds are, I may want to get in on that.
*

 

[Vermonster]

I can only assume your disruptive and irrational posts are endorsed and encouraged by staff and owners of AS, and especially by EPA approved stove sponsors that pay to have you trash their products.
If that proves to be true, then this site truly sucks.

 

[jrider]

Hmmmmm........ I would question how you come to that conclusion, considering the number of members here vs. how many have actually called me out.
Maybe a poll?? What'da ya' think??
Heck, I ain't afraid of it... you can even decide what the question will be as long as I get to make-up just one of the possible answers.
*

Just because people don't call you out doesn't mean a whole lot. Maybe they just get tired of reading long winded posts and have better things to do.

 

[Whitespider]

Wait...
Who's product did I trash?? Which sponsor was that??
And how exactly did I get by with that??

Just because people don't call you out doesn't mean a whole lot.

And just because a few do don't mean a whole lot either...
What's your point??
*

 

[Bushmans]

I don't believe a poll will work. Everyone will vote for their own stove so it will just be a census more than anything. Now a poll on who is master of the BS would be interesting.
Seriously it is just a forum to chat about wood burning and related things.
Arguing a point is one thing, bashing a person or his family is out of line.
We are all entitled to our own opinion and resorting to personal attacks is a bit childish in my book.
JMHO in case you want to argue about it!

In all honesty I read these because I want to know as much as I can and of course I like to root for my team (smoke dragon) because it is what I have. I have to stick up for it.
All of the stuff being posted anymore is lost because anyone reading this is simply reading for the entertainment value of the argument.

 

[Whitespider]

That there is good stuff Bushmans... damn good‼
Not to mention how true it is.
*

 

[Vermonster]

Yep, WS you are definitely approved and endorsed by owners and staff of this site. Apparently they feel misinformation is OK in your case, especially if it generates more clicks on AS.
The bottom line rule$. Give bad information on felling trees and you face sanctions. Give bad information on everything wood heating related and you get a free pass.