Put this way, more heat into dwelling than up the stack with a newer stove per volume of fuel, for the most part. Can't create what isn't there in the first place but you can use what there is more efficiently.
You know the rule, pics or it didn't happenI'm most definitely getting more heat with less wood. I think there are more factors at play than your simple math. IMHO. Like I said, my new stove cranks out heat far more than my previous stove. Another added benefit that doesn't go unnoticed is that my wife wears significantly less clothing in the house now than before and she's a very modest woman!
I recall your speculation that the secondary combustion stoves dump more heat out the stack, but you've never provided any evidence of that nor any theory as to why that would be.I remember a while back I tried to say the same basic thing Chris-PA... they darn near ran me out'a here on a rail.
You'd have thought I was some sort of Nazi
The EPA efficiency rating is simply the combustion efficiency... it ain't based on heating output verses heat lost to the stack. In other words, the way the testing is done, it would be possible to achieve an 85% EPA efficiency rating while allowing 85% of the heat to flow out the stack. And then, those tests are done with oven-dried dimensional lumber (2x4 and 4x4 fir nailed together with spacers between them... called cribs). Meaning even the combustion efficiency number is worthless in the "real world"... a 75% "combustion" efficient stove could easily burn cleaner than a 85% "combustion" efficient stove once ya' start stuffin' cord wood in it. And none of it tells you what to expect as far as heating output... although it is reasonable to assume a higher "combustion" efficiency would give more heat (for the entire burn cycle, not per hour) if the stoves are of like design.
Since so many are speakin' from "observation" in this thread, I'll toss this out...
Goin' on the observation of heat waves, and holdin' my hand over the chimney when on the roof, my elitist stove dumps a lot more heat out the stack than my smoke dragon does... a whole lot more‼
*
Interestingly, the new proposed regulations change the test fuel to cord wood... not sure how (or if) they're gonna' keep the playing field level, they don't specify. (shrug)As to the crib wood - it is important to be consistent, and that is not easy with a fuel like wood. So if they had to trade off a bit of realism for consistency I can understand that. If you were submitting a product you'd like a level playing field.
Yes, I had seen that and initially thought it was a good idea, but then was not so sure. I thought I read somewhere that's been dropped for now? It's probably too expensive to change the test and may not even work well.Interestingly, the new proposed regulations change the test fuel to cord wood... not sure how (or if) they're gonna' keep the playing field level, they don't specify. (shrug)
*
And, we also lose energy cleaning chimneys clogged by energy efficient stoves. Somehow, that never gets added into the efficiency equation.
if you have more heat out the chimney something is not correctly set up. I might have something mixed up but I do presume we are talking about something like a wood gasifier. Usually you have to fine tune your system so that you have enough heat even comming out your chimney to get out the carbon dioxide, etc. Or your system already has a lambda sensor and is virtually self regulating. Then you can dump in whatever type of wood you like it will always be close to perfect.Goin' on the observation of heat waves, and holdin' my hand over the chimney when on the roof, my elitist stove dumps a lot more heat out the stack than my smoke dragon does... a whole lot more‼
*
So… more heat from half the wood??
Let’s figure there’s 7000 BTUs in a pound of wood…
Let’s say, in 12 hours, I burn 100 pounds of it in my (supposedly) 55% efficient smoke dragon…
7000 × 100 × .55 ÷ 12 = 32083 BTU’s per hour (average).
Now let’s say, in 12 hours, you burn half that much wood in your (supposedly) 85% efficient elitist stove…
7000 × 50 × .85 ÷ 12 = 24791 BTU’s per hour (average).
Heck, even if we say the smoke dragon is only 50% efficient and the elitist stove is 90% efficient… it still comes up short…
7000 × 100 × .50 ÷ 12 = 29167 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .90 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.
More likely the “real world” efficiency numbers are closer to 60% and 80%...
7000 × 100 × .60 ÷ 12 = 35000 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .80 ÷ 12 = 23333 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.
More heat from half the wood??
Must be magic.
I don't believe in magic, so I don't believe claims of more heat from half the wood... actually I call BS‼
Now if the claim was the same amount of heat from 20% or 25% less wood I might buy that... maybe.
*
The Magnolia has a single air inlet that runs from the bottom of the stove up the back of the firebox - the tube is much larger than a nickle. There is a damper on the inlet of the tube and I was estimating the opening size when burning. There is no separate secondary inlet in that stove. The smaller stove we have upstairs does have a fixed secondary inlet, but it is small. They are not all built the same.I don't buy the seccondary air inlet being nickle sized.
The smallest epa stove I looked at had a inlet size of 1 inch by 1.75 inch. The "primary" inlet at the top of the door was less than one half of that area.
It was impossible to start a fire in that stove without leaving the door open.
Air flows thru the secondary all the time, removing heated room air without contributing anything to combustion for a great part of the burning cycle.
A good part of the time when many people think they are seeing secondary burn, what they are seeing is a hole being blown thru the flames by wasted air on the way up the stove pipe.
The heat derived from secondary burn could have been gotten by getting enough air at the base of the fire to burn the gasses given off the wood in the first place.
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...l-with-epa-phase-2.267043/page-3#post-5051173I have never heard of a elitist stove, what is it? Do you have a thread on it?
You're talkin' "energy" efficient rather than "combustion" efficient?? Well... I don't know what the numbers are. I'm thinking your numbers are a bit low for the smoke dragon, and even more likely a bit high for the "real world" elitist stove... but let's use them. Even using your numbers it don't change my point...The average smoke dragon is lucky if it's 50% efficient, more like 40% and most EPA cat/non cat stoves are in the low 70's or high 60's.
Enter your email address to join: