tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post5559112562706275255..comments2024-03-28T06:18:02.329-07:00Comments on Heated Up!: New Paper Undermines Stove Industry Variability StudyJohn Ackerlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07548459677032843743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-74718840817315389572014-10-06T08:23:40.299-07:002014-10-06T08:23:40.299-07:00Sadly I really want regulation to be the last stra...Sadly I really want regulation to be the last straw. I would prefer to see standards for testing so that everyone is on the same playing field as far as results. I personally love the energy star ratings labels on products and I do in fact go looking for the most efficient and cost effective options when I buy other products. I would like to see this same sort of data put on products so that consumers know what they are buying, how it is rated, and how it stacks up to other products on the market. To point to the fuel and say it is a fuel quality issue does have some merit, but I think these testing standards have to assume some degree of averages or even sample worst case. These companies that make these products then can use this as a marketing tool to show how advanced, or efficient their products are. Honestly many people burn wood because of availability of the wood in their locations, and because it is a cost effective. Since the consumer is already focused on cost they will pay attention to those products that get them the biggest bang for their buck both in up front costs and in the lifetime costs of using the products. Market forces can go a long way molding the products that are available if the data is there so that the customer can decide. While we hear the sky is falling all the time when it comes to new regulation and I am strongly opposed to the one size fits all regulation standards when you could just take the time to inform the customers of these products of the differences and they will move the market in a direction that makes sense. I like the Woodstock Ideal Steel product, but it is still out if reach for many people in terms of cost(and yes I know it is already on the low end of that product category cost). But for this sort of tech to reach average people the cost needs to come down. I also have reservations about the catalytic combusters long term reliability and the possible variablity due to problems that come up with the catalytic combusters. This is an ongoing maint issue, and an ongoing cost that adds complications to the product that quite likely will degrade product performance in the long run. Again costs and simplicity need to be in the center of focus. Now does that mean I wouldn't buy a catalytic stove? No it doesn't, but it does still give me reservations that make me look at the cleanest non-catalytic options first. <br /><br />If however the industry cannot see its way to developing a standard for testing and labelling then maybe we are forced to some degree of regulation in this regard so that customers are informed and the data is available to everyone. I hate to see it, but setting a testing and labelling standard may be required. I don't think you need to go as far as to set a standard on emmisions. You put the data out there for the customer to see and explain what it means and watch the market change. People are not stupid, if you give them the information and options they will make different choices than they do today. I know I am looking for the most efficient and reliable stove I can find right now which is how I found your blog post. Thanks for sharing this info as it helps me to understand some of the issues with this industry and why it is so hard to get good information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-3848690686235315852014-09-03T10:59:26.360-07:002014-09-03T10:59:26.360-07:00Sometimes we need to be dragged to a better way, k...Sometimes we need to be dragged to a better way, kicking and screaming...remember with automobiles in the 70's..auto makers said emission standards would put them out of business...and there was growing pains but in the end no reasonable person can say it was a bad move...The same holds true with woodstove i'll take my epa certified stove over a smoke dragon any day.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00644636391625432539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-65961713331158271272014-09-03T07:28:03.232-07:002014-09-03T07:28:03.232-07:00Interesting. A "paper" undermines a &quo...Interesting. A "paper" undermines a "study" - if that's the standard, we should all get busy writing!<br /><br />Of course, the great unsaid is that consumers burn ONLY cord word and not of an even moisture content. Also, having one stove built and tested to the standards is not really "proof of best technology" any more than the Honda Insight was in 1999. Did the EPA then adjust the standard so that only the Insight fit into it? Of course not. On the same token, more power to those doing the research and improving the real world burns. <br /><br />I don't think there is a single example of a standard being set as high as one product demonstrated when tested in-house by the manufacturer - it would be a shame if that were allowed to stand.<br /><br />Tightening up is a good thing - but it should represent the real difference in cord word burns in consumer houses. Perhaps the proponents here would be willing to donate the million or so needed for a basic study?<br /><br />Let me make a prediction here. If the tight standards are allowed to stand, there will be a few basic designs on the market which will be copied (by China and others) within a year or so....if that's the goal, then so be it. But if innovation within a relatively wide goad (>2 or 2.5 g, for example) is desired, then the standard should be set higher to allow for all the differences in moisture, chimneys, operators, stove sizes, etc.<br />Craig Issodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12166925904247069583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-21165531011434800732014-08-23T08:32:43.170-07:002014-08-23T08:32:43.170-07:00“This leaves the only logical conclusion. Variabil... “This leaves the only logical conclusion. Variability<br />in wood heater emission testing results for any given<br />appliance is most likely a function of the random na‐<br />ture of burning wood, no matter how tightly you try to<br />control the process."...<br /><br />I agree with Tom Morrissey that the above statement from HPBA is misleading.<br />Paul Tiegs stated at a B-415 meeting that I was at, that in in-house testing at OMNI, they were able to get 6% repeatability in a series of 6 repeat runs with cribs, by tightening the moisture spec. Unfortunately, he never published this data.<br /><br />In our own testing on masonry heaters, we got 10% repeatability with cribs constructed from run-of-the-mill Home Depot SPF 2x4's that were, however, carefully matched for moisture.<br /><br />Similar to Morrissey, we got cleaner results with cordwood than with cribs.<br />If we want repeatibility, then the current fad towards cordwood testing is misdirected, in my opinion.<br /><br />Paul Tiegs was a big advocate of crib testing. Cribs can be specified and repeated exactly, lab to lab. How do you do that with cordwood? - that's the $64.00 question. We are putting the cart before the horse.<br /><br />For instance, an informal analysis of the results from the Wood Stove Decathlon yielded a variability of 40% (cordwood), which is in line with what HPBA is claiming.Norbert Senfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13647278008745365126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-58894647127170368872014-08-22T22:50:49.963-07:002014-08-22T22:50:49.963-07:00At point to make. Ethanol for a vehicle fuel is al...At point to make. Ethanol for a vehicle fuel is always getting the "real cost" argument. Cultivating soil, planting, spraying, harvesting, trucking and such and then calculating the true expense of the use on the environment.<br /><br /> I just don't see the small home owner, polluting with burning wood in their "newer good" stove. Burning in an outdoor stove that uses more wood than an indoor wood heater, yeah some (most) waste energy. How can burning natural gas, propane or fuel oil be good for the environment?<br /><br />Burn firewood and plant more trees. As with most decisions, the company (person) with the most to lose, will fight the hardest for the sake of losing money or to continue with the gains they are currently receiving.<br /><br />I have a good stove design. Yet, I have a home owner that wants me to fix a stove from another manufacturer. Should not the other company just simply build a better stove? If aloud to sell junk, companies will sell junk. Some regulation protects people and the environment.Treeguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12699081196295699514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-22568071863649724752014-08-20T12:18:17.592-07:002014-08-20T12:18:17.592-07:00The EPA should butt out and let the industry grow....The EPA should butt out and let the industry grow. There is no good whatsoever that can come of this regulation. There is more pollution from forest fires and/or volcanoes than the hearth industry ever puts out. This is nothing more than a witch hunt and a power play by the feds. If a local area has a problem with too much smoke then let them deal with it locally - much more efficient and cost effective that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com