NSMaple1
Addicted to ArboristSite
Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.
I wouldn't say "nothing behind it."So the improved extraction of energy from the wood is shown by testing while greater losses of heat up the flue is a guess that has nothing behind it.
Agreed‼Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.
and thats what fairys and gnomes do to your thought pattern???? spend less time in the garden,, honoring them,, and you MIGHT get straightened out.............Of course it's not about me good buddy.
.....and pulling numbers out of your arse.
The test was not intended to test stove efficiency, it was intended to test particulate emissions. Indirectly it also measures the efficiency of the extraction of energy from the logs.Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.
Near totally? Hardly. The bottom and a brick height on the sides. The rest of the steel and the door can radiate, and radiation is the primary means of heat energy transfer from the firebox. It goes up as the 4th power of the temperature difference.The firebox of my elitist stove is (was) near totally lined with firebrick (refractory brick)
Chris, the difference in bare steel directly exposed to the combustion chamber is huge (friggin' huge) between my elitist stove (and/or those I've looked at) compared to any of my smoke dragons... past or present. The upper part of my stove is not directly exposed to the combustion chamber... the secondary baffle sits between them (and then there's another steel heat shield between the baffle and the roof). And I did acknowledge the glass door.Near totally? Hardly.
Chris, the difference in bare steel directly exposed to the combustion chamber is huge (friggin' huge) between my elitist stove (and/or those I've looked at) compared to any of my smoke dragons... past or present. The upper part of my stove is not directly exposed to the combustion chamber... the secondary baffle sits between them (and then there's another steel heat shield between the baffle and the roof). And I did acknowledge the glass door.
*
I agree, you cannot get all of it. If the firebox temps are higher then the amount lost up the flue will probably be higher too. But that is true as well with any stove if you open it up to get the fire hotter, and individual designs will have different heat exchange effectiveness as you say. It's just another way of saying that a stove burning hotter loses a greater quantity of energy up the stack (but not necessarily a greater percentage) - the higher temps still give much greater radiative heat transfer.Meaning, extracting more heat energy would increase both realized heat and lost heat, you're not gettin' 100% of the "extra" into your home
Ah-ha... so we agree than...a stove burning hotter loses a greater quantity of energy up the stack (but not necessarily a greater percentage)...
I don't see how recovering the energy in the particulates could be a net negative...
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...l-with-epa-phase-2.267043/page-3#post-5051173
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...
7000 × 100 × .40 ÷ 12 = 23333 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .70 ÷ 12 = 204166 BTU’s per hour (average) for the modern stove
You still ain't getting more heat from half the wood... unless, of course, magic is involved.
Like I said, I might buy the same heat from 20%-25% less wood... maybe.
*
What?? They use 70% less wood for the same heat??I would make an educated guess on average across most stove models the newer stoves burn approximately 30% wood for the same heat output.
Well... I'll argue that all day long.The EPA stoves are designed to work better and guess what, they do.
What?? They use 70% less wood for the same heat??
Now that one I ain't buyin'... no friggin' way‼
(Or was that a typo on your part and you meant 30% less wood?? Which I still believe is a stretch.)
Well... I'll argue that all day long.
They are designed, out of necessity, to pass the EPA test procedures‼ Whether-or-not they actually work "better" will depend on more variables than I care to get into. For some applications they likely do work "better"... other applications, not so much.
*
By who's standard??Yes they are designed to pass EPA test procedures, but in doing so they also improve upon the old designs and improve efficiency.
I ain't discounting anything... I'm simply saying that an elitist stove ain't the be-all-to-end-all you're saying it is.I'm not going to discount that the new stoves work better just because they are EPA approved either.
NO‼ I am not...Lets face it, you're basing your entire opinion on a sample size of one stove.
By who's standard??
Improved efficiency of what?? Combustion efficiency?? So what?? That means nothing to the "rate" of heating output (i.e., BTUs per hour). Combustion efficiency is a measure of how much wood is consumed (converted to heat energy) over the entire burn cycle... not a measure of heat output.
I ain't discounting anything... I'm simply saying that an elitist stove ain't the be-all-to-end-all you're saying it is.
You're the one "discounting" that the smoke dragon may be a better choice for certain applications... I've acknowledged several times the elitist stove may be the better choice for certain applications.
NO‼ I am not...
But let me ask you... what sample size (of both types) are you basing your opinion on??
Because, no matter how you slice it, that's all it is... your opinion‼
*
Show me the tests and numbers.Both improved combustion efficiency and heating efficiency.
Just as the term "smoke dragon" demonstrates the same bias... I'm just playin' along.(fyi calling it an "elitist" stove just demonstrates bias)
Yup, same here.I'm basing my opinion upon the facts and experience with several stoves... family members... friends...
Playin' the engineer card holds no weight with me.Also I have read the studies and have almost 20 years experience as a professional engineer...
Show me the tests and numbers.
We've already been through that in this thread... there ain't no comparative testing or "proof" of improved heating efficiency, only combustion efficiency.
Just as the term "smoke dragon" demonstrates the same bias... I'm just playin' along.
Yup, same here.
Admittedly some like the elitist stoves better than others. But almost to a man they "dislike" the same things (compared to the smoke dragon)...
In my opinion, that ain't "better"... or even an improvement‼
- During secondary combustion the heat output is difficult to control.
- When the secondary shuts-down heat output is drastically reduced.
- They haf'ta "fiddle" with the thing a lot more.
- Excessive coal build-up during times of high heat demand.
Playin' the engineer card holds no weight with me.
*
Enter your email address to join: