Oxford
ArboristSite Operative
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....
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....