Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [woodheat] Re:Wood burning efficiency question

Expand Messages
  • Alan
    I m sorry, but That is not exactly true. The part in quotes is from the movie Independence Day. Before I ever heard of EPA Rated or Secondary Air stoves
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 31, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm sorry, but "That is not exactly true."
      The part in quotes is from the movie Independence Day.

      Before I ever heard of EPA Rated or Secondary Air stoves completely by accident I learned about secondary air and what a wonderful difference it made.
      It was a home built two barrel stove that my father-in-law had built.
      He built it with two little 15 gallon barrels.
      The pipe he put between the two barrels was made from two six inch long by six inch around metal tubes.
      He had welded them together by spacing them 1/8" apart and welding an inch then skipping an inch.
      He just packed furnace cement around that series of slits all the way around that pipe.
      After completing the stove he found it didn't put out enough heat for his house so he gave it to me and built a larger stove.
      It was setting in my garage for around ten years then my wood furnace went bad so I put the barrel stove in my basement.
      I found it wouldn't put out enough heat for my house.
      The next Fall I lit the first fire then notice there was a lot of dust on the stove.
      I grabbed the brush that was hanging over my table saw and started brushing the stove off before the barrel got too hot.
      I just barely bumped that connecting pipe and that donut of furnace cement all fell off.
      All of a sudden there was a fireball in that pipe when air was added all the way around that pipe.
      So,,, The first year we could only build what I will call medium fires because the bottom barrel would get too red.
      The second through tenth year we had to build even smaller fires because the top barrel would get too red.
      We burned a LOT less wood and we got a LOT more heat out of that stove.

      Now what was that if it wasn't an accident?
      If I had cleaned that stove off before lighting the fire and that furnace cement had fallen off I sure wouldn't have lit a fire in that stove before going to the hardware store and buying furnace cement to "fix" it.

      Alan in Michigan

      --- On Fri, 10/31/08, samiamrd <taborl@...> wrote:

      > From: samiamrd <taborl@...>
      > Subject: [woodheat] Re:Wood burning efficiency question
      > To: woodheat@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 3:26 PM
      > I agree with the appliance design influence. If you build
      > quality
      > into the unit, you will have a high likelyhood of achieving
      > the
      > desired output. If it is not designed right, you don't
      > stand a
      > chance of coming close, even with great technique.
      >
      > The 1/3 less wood needed for an EPA certified wood stove by
      > burning
      > the volital organics, was not an accident. It is quality by
      > design.
      >
      > Sam
      >
      >
      > --- In woodheat@yahoogroups.com, "John Gulland"
      > <john@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I agree that user practices are a big factor in
      > overall
      > > performance although I wouldn't say they are more
      > important
      > > than appliance design. I have always wanted to test
      > and
      > > document the influence of firing technique, but since
      > there
      > > is no one who could make money on the result, no one
      > has
      > > been willing to fund the research.
      > > John
      > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: woodheat@yahoogroups.com
      > > > [mailto:woodheat@yahoogroups.com]On
      > > > Behalf Of noahk5270
      > > > Sent: October 31, 2008 2:11 PM
      > > > To: woodheat@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [woodheat] Re:Wood burning efficiency
      > question
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I would think, equally as important, if not more
      > > > so is HOW you burn. I have found this
      > > > season so far, burning small, HOT fires closer to
      > > > the door has allowed me to heat faster
      > > > and use much less wood. I also get to build up
      > > > coals over the evening for the big
      > > > overnight rounds.
      > > >
      > > > --- In woodheat@yahoogroups.com, "John
      > Gulland"
      > > > <john@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > True as far as it goes, but if you burn that
      > > > wood in a stove
      > > > > that wasn't developed by smart people
      > using some pretty
      > > > > fancy technologies, you will waste about a
      > third of that
      > > > > old-fashioned wood you harvest and process.
      > > > > John
      > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > > > > Checked by AVG.
      > > > > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database:
      > 270.8.5/1756
      > > > - Release
      > > > > Date: 30/10/2008 7:59 AM
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Check THE woodheat web site at
      > http://www.woodheat.org
      > > > To receive no more messages email:
      > > > woodheat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > Checked by AVG.
      > > > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1756 -
      > > > Release Date: 30/10/2008 7:59 AM
      > > >
      > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > > Checked by AVG.
      > > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1756 -
      > Release
      > > Date: 30/10/2008 7:59 AM
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Check THE woodheat web site at http://www.woodheat.org
      > To receive no more messages email:
      > woodheat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Norbert Senf
      ... (snip) ... Hi: actually, those are not too hard to get. The standard test fuel is douglas fir without bark, so its heat content per pound is fairly well
      Message 34 of 34 , Nov 3, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In woodheat@yahoogroups.com, "danatt" <danatt@...> wrote:
        (snip)
        > you'd have to accurately know the energy content of the fuel and its
        > moisture content, (snip)

        Hi: actually, those are not too hard to get. The standard test fuel is
        douglas fir without bark, so its heat content per pound is fairly well
        known from calorimeter tests. To get the best repeatability, you'd
        probably go to your Home Depot (if you are in the west) and get some
        doug fir 4x4's, and cut them up. This, in fact, is what one of the
        most highly regarded EPA-accredited labs does. They take a little
        moisture meter with them, and pick ones that are 20%.

        You also need a reasonably accurate scale to weigh them.

        But for a hydronic system, like
        > the Greenwood, it seems like this could be more easily captured from
        > the delta T, and flow rate of the heating fluid. Lots of good
        > potential science here.

        Also, should be doable. Measuring delta T within half a degree is
        quite doable for a couple of hundred dollars. You'd have to know the
        flow rate of the circulating pump, for example by diverting the flow
        into a known size container, and timing how long it takes to fill.

        If you get anywhere near 85%, that would be front page news ;-)

        Norbert
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.