Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Does the EPA Test Method Hinder Stove Innovation?
We often hear that the way the EPA tests stoves for
certification inhibits innovation in stove design. What’s your opinion? What are the main ways that innovation is
hindered? Please add your opinion on the
blog comment section. Next month, we
will publish the best reasons. If you
want to remain anonymous, send comments to info@forgreenheat.org.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am glad this has been brought up. After my experience at Omni Test Labs I do feel I can speak on this subject. It was very clear that the EPA test protocols favor larger stoves which can ride out a large coal bed during the test. Smaller stoves which can not develop a large coal bed are tested with reload points larger ones do not have to undergo. I believe a different method should be used which requires all stoves to have numerous timed runs where all particulates are dried and weighed, then divided by number of hours run. The weighted average should be eliminated. In this case all stoves GPH rating would go up, but more accurately show what will be the outcome in a real world situation, I believe some of the industry leaders would then not have an unfair advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of time required by the test method, in respect to lab cost is a large issue when testing new units.
ReplyDeleteWe almost failed our stage three burn because our stove feeds by gravity and not a auger.We barely made the minimum burn rate in (lbs. per hour) for stage 3 burn) but our efficiency rate was close to 75% and our grams per hour of particulate was getting close to 1. We almost failed because were burning pellets to efficiently.
ReplyDeleteHere in CHCH NZ some 12yrs ago , a guy invented a burner that runs at 0.2g/Kg via EPA ...we are not allowed to use it , while we are allowed to use smokey 8g/Kg burners ....WHY ? because local rules say we can only use 1 test and that test excludes downdraft type burners ...so it isnt just EPA tests that hinder development , it's a fault everywhere ....
ReplyDelete