# Ban on wood-fired boilers-Its started.



## Rspike (Sep 22, 2006)

Ban on wood-fired boilers backed ,Friday, September 22, 2006 
By PETER GOONAN 
[email protected] 
CHICOPEE - The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously last night to ask the Board of Health to ban outdoor wood fired boilers in response to recent complaints by some residents about smoke and pollution. 

During a meeting at the City Hall Annex, Alderman-at-Large James K. Tillotson asked for two votes - one supporting the ban proposed by the Ordinance Committee and the other referring the matter for action by the Board of Health. Both were aoorived 12-0. 

Tillotson said he conferred with the aldermen’s legal counsel, Daniel Garvey, about the best way to implement the ban, and they agreed it should go through the Board of Health. 

Advertisement 




“I think the Health Department has much clearer authority when it comes to health issues,” Tillotson said. 

Board of Health Chairman Frank Boron, reached for comment after the meeting, said his board will ask the Law Department to draft the proposed ban, and will then hold public hearings before making a decision. 

In the meantime, the Board of Health voted this week to extend its temporary moratorium on outdoor boilers until June 2007. 

Aldermen said last night that it was clear from testimony, both last night and at a prior meeting of the Ordinance Committee, that outdoor boilers create a concern about public health and pose a nuisance to neighbors. The proposed ban is aimed at both new and existing boilers. 

City officials know of four outdoor boilers in Chicopee. Two owners have defended their boilers, including one homeowner who received a building permit in advance and spent more than $10,000 for the boiler. 

Several neighbors and nearby residents said the boilers are a health hazard due to the wood smoke that is emitted. They praised the aldermen for taking up the issue. 

Joseph T. and Arelia G. Tumidajewicz of 340 Pendleton Drive, who live next to a house heated by an outdoor wood boiler, said they were very pleased by last night’s vote. 

“I think a lot of communities will follow Chicopee’s lead,” Arelia Tumidajewicz said. 

Others speaking in favor of the ban last night included Janet Sinclair of Buckland, and Curt Freedman, P.E., a professor at Western New England College, who teaches energy management. 

In other action, aldermen gave a first reading to an ordinance to allow no more than 59 billboard “faces” in the city. Currently, the ordinance allows no more than 31 billboards, but confusion emerged because of different ways of counting signs, depending on whether the faces of the billboards are connected, partially connected or separate. 

The proposal for 59 billboard faces allows for the 50 current sign faces in the city, signs under consideration, and some leeway for one or two signs previously proposed, Tillotson said.


----------



## Rspike (Sep 22, 2006)

We have some in our town and its like San Francisco SMOG in the Spring / Winter / Spring. History: http://www.woodheat.org/technology/NYreport.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outboiler.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outrickperth.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outbobpen.htm I have a neighbor that went from 3 cords a year with an indoor wood stove to 8 cords a year with his new wood boiler , he wanst happy.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Sep 22, 2006)

Guy around here was on the news bragging, "I burn 15 cords a year and heat my entire house".(2 story farmhouse)



Just makes you wonder......


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 24, 2006)

RaisedByWolves said:


> Guy around here was on the news bragging, "I burn 15 cords a year and heat my entire house".(2 story farmhouse)
> 
> 
> 
> Just makes you wonder......



Most boilers are overkill for small homes.

I did the numbers for my house, a 3k insert will heat the whole thing where a 12k outdoor boiler (installed price, I cannot do most of the work. Franklin, WI is permit happy) would be overkill. I would need a hydronic system that heated the entire garager and sidewalk to fully utilize the boiler.

My only reason for likeing the boiler is that it is outside, and i can throw the big chunks of crap into it once a day.


Here in WI there is talk about mandating the use of only the high efficiency units like Garn. The problem there is they require dried to 20% or less.


----------



## mga (Sep 24, 2006)

> CHICOPEE - The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously last night to ask the Board of Health to ban outdoor wood fired boilers in response to recent complaints by some residents about smoke and pollution.



lol...will fireplaces be next? 

now, if a homeowner had installed one right next to a neighbor's house where the smoke would blow into the neighbor's house all day, then maybe initiating a set of codes would be a better idea than a ban. not everyone installs things with being neighborly in mind.

i think the board over reacted.


----------



## Rspike (Sep 24, 2006)

mga said:


> lol...will fireplaces be next?


unknown , Maybe. Normally the fire place is used for a nice setting once in a wile and not used for heat. The wood boiler is used in a different way. Normally a fire place is not used 24/7 like a wood boiler. I'm excited my self to see ANY heating unit ( wood, coal, pellet,corn ect ) to be controled by EPA and to have guide lines. Some of the wood boilers are only 20% efficiency !! 20% !! and even some of the better ones are only 40% . Theres no way you would buy a home furnace of electric or gas that only got 20% efficiency so why buy one of Wood that is only 20%-40% efficiency? Wouldnt it be nice if they were at least 70%-80% efficiency ? I would think so. The wood boiler would burn less wood and it would burn at under 10 Gm/Hr Emmisions vs the 50-80 grams per hours that do now. = 1 outdoor wood boiler puts off emmisions of 80 modern epa wood stoves. 80 STOVES !!!! My wood stove runs at 3.5 grams per hour and is rated at 97,000 BTU's and there NO down fall to it. Whats wrong with a better burning wood boiler that heats better and burns less wood ? We already know the EPA and such (& countys -towns ) are going to get a hand in outdoor wood boilers in the future. I just feel sorry for the people that put up good $$ from $3,000.oo - $30,000.oo and might end up loosing the use of there stove. The bans i has seen and read about are not grandfathering in the already use of the stoves now being used. The bans i have read about are wood boilers all togother. I think the outdoor wood boiler makers need to step up to the plate and get a better efficiency out of there product before the EPA baby sitter has to take over.


----------



## Rspike (Sep 24, 2006)

BTW: Woodboiler users , I'm on you side .... I just think the outdoor wood boiler needs to be up to par. I think that something that is only getting 20%-40% efficiency and is putting out 50-80 gm/hr of emmisions that the outdoor wood boiler user/owner is getting ripped off. All the smoke that is going out the stack is unused HEAT . With some kinda of secondary combustion chamber for all that unused smoke the outdoor boiler owner could keep it and turn it into heat and not smoke. I wonder is most outdoor wood boiler owners relly know that there stove is only getting 20% to 40% efficiency?


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 24, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Whats wrong with a better burning wood boiler that heats better and burns less wood ?



My understanding is that some of the new high-e makes are 60-70%. The need for low water content just takes a lot of the desirableness away from them from my standpoint.

To get to 20% you need to split and dry indoors. Sure the waste heat from the boiler could be used in a fast kiln (who cares if the wood cracks, but that is more investent in time and manterials. Iliked the idea because scrap was viable fuel.

It's for sure that boilers are smokey, especialy when the blower kicks in.


----------



## Rspike (Sep 24, 2006)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> My understanding is that some of the new high-e makes are 60-70%. The need for low water content just takes a lot of the desirableness away from them from my standpoint.
> 
> To get to 20% you need to split and dry indoors. Sure the waste heat from the boiler could be used in a fast kiln (who cares if the wood cracks, but that is more investent in time and manterials. Iliked the idea because scrap was viable fuel.
> 
> It's for sure that boilers are smokey, especialy when the blower kicks in.


The proof is in the pudding so to speak. I would really like to see how an out door wood boiler can get 60%-70% when they go idel. An indoor woodstove is burning from start to finish on a log to get 60%-70% so i wonder how you can take away secondary combustion and choke down a stove to idel and still get 60%-70% efficiency. Its all a #'s game when outdoor wood boilers clam to get 60%-70% efficiency with the stove going idel and and restart up. The only way a outdoor boiler is getting 60%-70% is when showing burn time only. There was one link i posted the guy put in fire bricks , made a secondary combustion chamber and used only dry wood and made small fires to keep it hot and STILL only was only able to get under 50% efficiency.


----------



## MS-310 (Sep 25, 2006)

That wood heat site is full of crap on outdoor wood stoves.
What ever


----------



## mga (Sep 25, 2006)

i have a neighbor a couple of houses down who has a wood burning stove in the house. he does heat his home with it all winter. however, there are times when i can smell he's buring garbage like plastics, paper trash etc...it just has that smell......

this is the type who ruins it for everyone else.


----------



## hockeypuck (Sep 25, 2006)

*burning trash*

That moron up the street burning trash and plastic is creating a nice layer of acid to eat away at his fire box. He will get his own soon.
Puck


----------



## JeffHK454 (Sep 25, 2006)

mga said:


> i have a neighbor a couple of houses down who has a wood burning stove in the house. he does heat his home with it all winter. however, there are times when i can smell he's buring garbage like plastics, paper trash etc...it just has that smell......
> 
> this is the type who ruins it for everyone else.




You might go talk with him and tell him that it's very noticeable that he's burning garbage and it will destroy his stove and the reputation of wood burners.

A couple years ago I gave a bunch of Soft Maple logs to neighbor with a wood boiler , from what I could tell he had planed to heat his house with a large pile of pressure treated scrap posts...:help:..

He was very apprtiative of me giving him "good" wood and my family and I where spared the lung cancer!


----------



## Pollock777 (Sep 25, 2006)

*Out door Stoves*

Is this bann going to be in the whole USA? We have friends that have an outdoor system that dates back to the 1950's and alot of us are making plans from his stove to build our owen. Two are already finished and I'm already more than 1/2 way done with mine. I need to add his outdoor stove from the 50's heats his house,greenhouse, and garage. Plus his has a 20-25ft chimmey and burns very clean and eff. Will be watching thread close Tony N.J. PS I bet the oil companys will love this bann!!!!:censored: :censored:


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Sep 25, 2006)

Tony, being that your in NJ I would seroiusly consider getting some info from your township (in a round about way ) concerning these (or any) type of stove.


Its mostly up to your township, around here anyway.


----------



## olyman (Sep 25, 2006)

im with rspike on the efficency issue--but--most non woodburners arent aware of the issue--that being said--this bs about not burning wood needs to be stopped---NOW--theres enough freedoms being taken away---my old riteway wood burning furnace is damn efficent--how i know--because of the amount of wood i burn to heat our house--and this was long before they rated them--and --people in this town know me as about the only one that burns--and they like the smell of my wood burning--only smoke is when i throw a new log on--and then only for a while--also--when the woodburner is going--if your only heating the house--not the wash water--wont the neighbors windows be closed because its cold outside????? sheesh


----------



## daddieslilgirl (Oct 3, 2006)

*ban on outdoor stoves*

first id like to say if i did at this point have one and a neighbor complained id try to fix the problem. also woodstoves have been around for years and now everyone is having problems with the smoke? i think its more about smoke being blown up someones behind! there wasnt a problem until fuel oil sky rocketed and people started buying them. in the summer i fill my dads up once every 3-4 days. in the winter i fill it twice a day...he prefers once, but i dont agree and our electric up here is not reliable to say the least! i want them to be warm! if my neighbors who all have wood stoves indoor and out want to complain..they know where to come! no one does because wood is our sustanance so to speak, as well as theirs! it would cost me 700.00 to fill my oil barrel and it uses 3 for the winter thats 2100.00! wood is all i have! not all of us has a gazillion dollars to spend on electric, propane, or heating fuel! thats why we use the boilers! and i dont even have mine yet! but i have to cut the wood for it for my mom and dad! not that i mind they are my parents, i do mind all this epa bs! try having a sick baby with no fuel and only a woodstove when the ice is on the electric lines? what do you think keeps them warm? you all need to think about stuff like that! sorry stuff like this just [email protected]@@@@ me off! i apologize if ive offended anyone! i hope i have, maybe theyll think twice, about whether my nieces should freeze to death or a little smoke might get up their nose! sorry this is just a sore subject with me!


----------



## Rspike (Oct 3, 2006)

Its not so much about "burning wood" as it is about the ways wood is being burned. Wood burning is not going to go away or be ban in my life time but "outdated wood burning" will be. First i like to say to all the people that burn "green wood" is working a lot more harder then they should. Your only going to get less than 25% of the heat value out of wood burning when its green. Look it up , do the research. Also with hight efficiency wood burning stoves you get less smoke ............So what does that mean to us wood burners ? no smoke = more heat. Like on secondary combustion stoves they burn the smoke that would normally go up the pipe and that = HEAT . secondary combustion chambers are taking smoke that normally goes out the pipe and burns it and at the average of 1100° what in turn is a more efficient stove = less wood + longer burn times. A higher efficient stove is not a wood burners enemie ........... higher efficient is on our side. Its like watching a bunch of people defend there 25% efficient gas furnace. Its time to wake up. Why are so many people bucking the fact that high efficient is not better ? Again , i "was" going to buy an outdoor wood boiler until i found out it was going to take 3 X more wood and was only 25%-45% efficient and was $7,000 to install . Now what would be wrong with an out door wood boiler that didnt take more wood & was at least 70% efficient ? As long as wood burning stoves can meet the EPA regulations there will be wood burning. Hell , before EPA got control of wood burning (indoor stove for now )we were sending $$ up the stove pipe. I heated a house with a "air tight" older non- EPA wood stove and took 8-9 cords to heat the home. Same home and a new EPA wood stove and now it takes only 3-4 cords of wood. You can't get much easier math than that. The bonus is no smoke. ( note: thats heating my home 100% with wood heat )


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 3, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Its not so much about "burning wood" as it is about the ways wood is being burned. Wood burning is not going to go away or be ban in my life time but "outdated wood burning" will be. First i like to say to all the people that burn "green wood" is working a lot more harder then they should. Your only going to get less than 25% of the heat value out of wood burning when its green. Look it up , do the research. Also with hight efficiency wood burning stoves you get less smoke ............So what does that mean to us wood burners ? no smoke = more heat. Like on secondary combustion stoves they burn the smoke that would normally go up the pipe and that = HEAT . secondary combustion chambers are taking smoke that normally goes out the pipe and burns it and at the average of 1100° what in turn is a more efficient stove = less wood + longer burn times. A higher efficient stove is not a wood burners enemie ........... higher efficient is on our side. Its like watching a bunch of people defend there 25% efficient gas furnace. Its time to wake up. Why are so many people bucking the fact that high efficient is not better ? Again , i "was" going to buy an outdoor wood boiler until i found out it was going to take 3 X more wood and was only 25%-45% efficient and was $7,000 to install . Now what would be wrong with an out door wood boiler that didnt take more wood & was at least 70% efficient ? As long as wood burning stoves can meet the EPA regulations there will be wood burning. Hell , before EPA got control of wood burning (indoor stove for now )we were sending $$ up the stove pipe. I heated a house with a "air tight" older non- EPA wood stove and took 8-9 cords to heat the home. Same home and a new EPA wood stove and now it takes only 3-4 cords of wood. You can't get much easier math than that. The bonus is no smoke. ( note: thats heating my home 100% with wood heat )



How many fans do you have in the house to move the air around??? 
Is this stove heating your hot water????
how old is your house and how is the R-valve in the walls and ceiling?
Why I ask is I have not seen a OWB use 12 cords a year to heat a house like yours and also with out the hotwater getting heated. (I got that number with 3x your 4 cord you burn now).
My house is 1800sqft house with hotwater heater kit on and no R-value any where, I keep my house at 76 deg all winter long and burn 5 full cords. The only way I know this is becuz I made sure I did take count on my wood and what my burn time was with my "home made boiler". They smoke a little bit more then your stove in real life, do you belive every thing you see on T.V. Rspike, I hope not, so y do you think OWB smoke and cant burn well and so on????? CUZ YOU READ IT ON THE WEB..........................
See it and do it before you make this big thing out of it, and yes I do have an soap stone stove at the cabin that I do really like but I hate having the fire in house.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 3, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> How many fans do you have in the house to move the air around???
> Is this stove heating your hot water????
> how old is your house and how is the R-valve in the walls and ceiling?
> Why I ask is I have not seen a OWB use 12 cords a year to heat a house like yours and also with out the hotwater getting heated. (I got that number with 3x your 4 cord you burn now).
> ...


 *I'm not the one baning out door wood boilers!* Some one must belive there Smokey and less efficient if there baning them as we speak. There has been a lot of testing of out door wood boilers and in turn there getting the boot in a lot of states. Your asking the wrong guy your questions. I would contact these states that have done test and with there test they feel out door wood boilers are not worthy to be in there area. BTW I got X3 the wood from where i was looking at buying a out door wood boiler. It was there statement of how much wood i would use to heat my house. Funny thing is all the people that say that out door wood boilers are efficient but have *NO* data or documents , links , proof or test to show. Again , dont blame me ........... talk to the states that have done test and are giving them the boot.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 3, 2006)

Rspike said:


> *I'm not the one baning out door wood boilers!* Some one must belive there Smokey and less efficient if there baning them as we speak. There has been a lot of testing of out door wood boilers and in turn there getting the boot in a lot of states. Your asking the wrong guy your questions. I would contact these states that have done test and with there test they feel out door wood boilers are not worthy to be in there area. BTW I got X3 the wood from where i was looking at buying a out door wood boiler. It was there statement of how much wood i would use to heat my house. Funny thing is all the people that say that out door wood boilers are efficient but have *NO* data or documents , links , proof or test to show. Again , dont blame me ........... talk to the states that have done test and are giving them the boot.



There is no state that has baned OWB, No date or truth so are you saying im lieing about my 4 to 5 cords a year??? 
I know im venting at you and I should stop at this point. I could go on forever yelling and so on and you will still not beleave me on this. OWB took alot of sales away from the Indoor stoves, so no wonder why you see this on the sites promoting indoor wood stoves, its really all about bashing the OWB becuz they really make indoor stoves worthless.
And thanks for tell me all of what I wanted to know


----------



## laynes69 (Oct 3, 2006)

I dont have an outdoor wood burner. But if its saving people money and keeping them warm thats great. I have thought of getting one, but there a little steep for us right now. If the firebox wasnt surrounded my water it would be easier to get a cleaner burn. Theres payoffs of either system. Indoor or outdoor.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 3, 2006)

These bans can be got around by placing the boiler inside a building such as a pole barn. I have seen people do this. Then the only why they can ban them is ban all word burning.


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 3, 2006)

I believe Indianapolis just baned outdoor boilers in the last 2 months and once that ban was successful a large number of Indiana countys purposed similar ordinances. It starts in the urban areas and spreads to even the most rural corners of the state. The ban would require the current offenders to make improvements or face fines and also denied new wood boiler permits to be granted. The funny part is that the county that the city of Indianapolis is in had 2 known wood boiler users!

This was a quote from a friend that lives in Brookeville , a small "country" town in the south/eastern corner of Indiana, he paraphrased what he had read in a local farm report. 

He was actually about a day away from buying a new WoodMaster to heat a house/shop combo but has backed off the purchase until he's more confident in the future of outdoor wood boiler.

I hope it's misinformation because it would just be the start of banning all wood burning .


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 3, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> OWB took alot of sales away from the Indoor stoves, so no wonder why you see this on the sites promoting indoor wood stoves, its really all about bashing the OWB becuz they really make indoor stoves worthless.



How do you figure they make indoor stoves worthless?


----------



## Rspike (Oct 3, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> How do you figure they make indoor stoves worthless?


He is just talking out his pie hole. The posted links were from state courts and such . His statements dont make any sense. Its not like i work for a indoor wood stove company. I have already posted links showing the ban of outdoor wood boilers and many people have stated that there have been ban's in there town's , states and such. I thought i would post the ban's as i have found them to help warn people that are about to throw down $5,000. - $30,000. on an outdoor wood boiler . Now that would bit the big one. Every one can do there own research , dont take my work for it thus i posted links of it happening. I know i did my research and am glad i did. There talking about it in my town and many otheres around already. *ALSO, MS -310* already started a thread a wile back about the ban of wood stoves in towns around him. http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=33271 *He also stated* that he knows outdoor wood boilers smoke a lot and is a problem.


MS-310 said:


> I know the smoke is a problem but i know they burn wood in the older days so whats the problem now.... I really thank you guys for your input


 MS - 310 sells outdoor wood boilers so I'm sure he is going to be bias and defensive over something he make $$ on.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 3, 2006)

Some people don't understand the need for controlling the amount of unburned smoke. I think the best way is to envision if EVERYBODY changed to outdoor wood burners, then what? Imagain a whole town of 5 thousand houses with outdoor burners on one of those strange winter baromic pressure days when chimney smoke drops to the ground. This would obviously be a deadly situation. So I guess as long as too many don't buy them it's not a huge problem. Some towns may really have a problem with their appearence as much as pollution. You know how they want to tell you if you can build a sap house, or shed or whatever.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Oct 3, 2006)

Rspike said:


> He is just talking out his pie hole. His statements dont make any sense.





I like the part about only burning 4 cords and keeping his leaky houst at 76* 



I mean, its possable, but only if the outside temps never go below 50*


----------



## Rspike (Oct 3, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> My house is 1800sqft house with hotwater heater kit on and no R-value any where, I keep my house at 76 deg all winter long and burn 5 full cords. .





RaisedByWolves said:


> I like the part about only burning 4 cords and keeping his leaky houst at 76*
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, its possable, but only if the outside temps never go below 50*


Its hard to beleive 76° all winter long on a 1,800 sf home with no insulation of any kind in the *State of Michigan.* If you do the math on hard wood of OAK @ per cords x the BTU value of oak it dont add up. The house would have to have less than 10% heat loss during the winter. With WITH insulation you get more than 10% heat loss. *BTW RaisedByWolves.........* I ordered that helko Vario - 2000 size A (the big one) based on your report in the other thread. As said before its to fine tune the pile as it comes into the house. We'll C how it does. Thanks for the tip on her. *ALSO NOTE:* he mentioned in another thread that he only burns 3 cords to heat his house. *------->*


MS-310 said:


> Smoke My @ss
> 
> They dont smoke that much only when they start up. Some people just dont under stand the idea. You are going to us about 4 to 6 cords of wood, it my be less or more but avg. is 4 to 6 cords. Mine burns about 3 cords of wood a year, my house is old but only 1800 sqft. (and thats all im heating). any more ??????
> Jack


----------



## hamradio (Oct 3, 2006)

I like wood boilers. One guy across the lake I live on has one (a couple people live on the lake). Not an issue. I want to weld one up from scrap to supplement the ground source heat pump I have. If I made one, it'd be combo wood/corn/waste oil.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

bwalker said:


> These bans can be got around by placing the boiler inside a building such as a pole barn. I have seen people do this. Then the only why they can ban them is ban all word burning.


Not the smartest thing to do there bwalker. The reason the EPA has not got a hold of outdoor wood boilers *YET* is because its *not* inside of a building. wood burning appliances with in a building are subject to epa standards of emissions. Again there not going to ban inside wood stoves because they meet EPA guide lines. EPA phase I and EPA phase II . The average outdoor wood boiler puts off 80.0 grams per hours of emissions *(SMOKE)*, in order to put a outdoor wood boiler inside of a building it would have to meet stage II (phase II ) EPA laws of 6.0 grams per hour of emissions. * ( yes thats 6.0 GPH not 60 GPH )* Most modern indoor wood stoves already exceed the EPA's 6.0 GPH ( like mine of 3.5 GPH ) So save your $$ from putting up a building for your OWB. Just trying to help ya out brother. :help:


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 4, 2006)

WOW?

This is sweet,
Im getting called a lier, Im glad Rspike knows ever thing about OWB and its kinda funny he has never ran one or used one? Im not knock the indoor stoves (I got one I do like it).
Im talking out my pie hole? Thanks for the info


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 4, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Not the smartest thing to do there bwalker. The only reason the EPA has not got a hold of outdoor wood boilers *YET* is because its *not* inside of a building. All wood burning appliances with in a building are subject to epa standards of emissions. Again there not going to ban inside wood stoves because they meet EPA guide lines. EPA phase I and EPA phase II . The average outdoor wood boiler puts off 80.0 grams per hours of emissions *(SMOKE)*, in order to put a outdoor wood boiler inside of a building it would have to meet stage II (phase II ) EPA laws of 6.0 grams per hour of emissions. * ( yes thats 6.0 GPH not 60 GPH )* Most modern indoor wood stoves already exceed the EPA's 6.0 GPH ( like mine of 3.5 GPH ) So save your $$ from putting up a building for your OWB. Just trying to help ya out brother. :help:




I would like to see that... So will you give me the site, Im going to talk to some people next thursday at a city meeting on "wood burning", that would be great paper to show them, Plus where is this site you are getting this info of OWB "emission", I would like to do my own test to really see if this is the truth, but you wouldnt beleave me if I told you any ways.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 4, 2006)

Plus too, 

Keep buying gas or elec for your hot water heater, its helping the camel jockys........................................................


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes, lets not support the Iranian electric sheiks and the middle-eastern natural gas consortium's.:bang:





Rspike said:


> *BTW RaisedByWolves.........* I ordered that helko Vario - 2000 size A (the big one) based on your report in the other thread. As said before its to fine tune the pile as it comes into the house. We'll C how it does. Thanks for the tip on her. *ALSO NOTE:* he mentioned in another thread that he only burns 3 cords to heat his house. *------->*





Heh, 3 cords, 5 cords, it all looks the same when your eyes are teared up from being smoked like almonds.


Hope you like the Helko as much as I like mine!


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> I would like to see that... So will you give me the site, Im going to talk to some people next thursday at a city meeting on "wood burning", that would be great paper to show them, Plus where is this site you are getting this info of OWB "emission", I would like to do my own test to really see if this is the truth, but you wouldnt beleave me if I told you any ways.


http://www.nescaum.org/documents/as...ers/gitlen-letter-to-nescaum-21april2006.pdf/
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/as...-05-owb-report_revised-june2006-appendix.pdf/
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/as...esponse-to-april-21-comments-on-owb-rept.pdf/
http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...r wood "
http://www.woodheat.org/technology/NYreport.htm
http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outboiler.htm 
http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outrickperth.htm 
http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outbobpen.htm 
I think that would keep you busy for a wile. All you have to do is internet research. And "YES" i have run an out door wood boiler. I also have neighbors that have them. even tho one neighbor quit useing his because it took more wood to heat his house then his indoor wood stove. Thats kinda what happens when you go from a 74% efficient indoor stove to a 34% efficient outdoor wood boiler. It like any thing else ...... when you drop the efficiency it take more fuel .


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> Plus too,
> 
> Keep buying gas or elec for your hot water heater, its helping the camel jockys........................................................


I do have a hot water heater that runs on natural gas. Again, when you do your research and get an item that has *good efficinncy* it take less fuel. My gas bill per month is around $30. Family of 5 and a dishwasher. Electric bill in the winter is around $65.oo . Summer is around $95.oo and $120.oo the two hottest months. 4 cords or less a year on wood. I dont have anything to hide. Is there any other information you need to make your case? It's not me against you MS-310 ......... its you against outdoor wood boilers and the towns and states that are baning them.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 4, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> I would like to see that... So will you give me the site, Im going to talk to some people next thursday at a city meeting on "wood burning", that would be great paper to show them,



Let me see if I understand this correctly. You already own an outdoor boiler, and you want to bring printed articles that discuss issues and boiler problems....to your own city meeting? uhhhh?


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 4, 2006)

Rspike said:


> I do have a hot water heater that runs on natural gas. Again, when you do your research and get an item that has *good efficinncy* it take less fuel. My gas bill per month is around $30. Family of 5 and a dishwasher. Electric bill in the winter is around $65.oo . Summer is around $95.oo and $120.oo the two hottest months. 4 cords or less a year on wood. I dont have anything to hide. Is there any other information you need to make your case? It's not me against you MS-310 ......... its you against outdoor wood boilers and the towns and states that are baning them.



I think you're taking him too seriously.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> I think you're taking him too seriously.


 I post the information for everyone to read for them selves. MS-310 already knows. It lets others decide before putting *BIG $$'s* down. When you buy in indoor wood stove just like most appliances show reports and such and the efficiency of the item. outdoor wood boilers dont have such reports so states are doing the testing. Well there they are.........."the test results". I have asked many time all over the Internet for efficiency reports of OWB. I have called many OWB dealers asking for efficiency measurements and out put emissions and not one would give me any answers. WHY ? Because it wouldn't be wise to advertise there own product as 34% efficient and puts off 80 gph of emissions.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 4, 2006)

> Not the smartest thing to do there bwalker. The only reason the EPA has not got a hold of outdoor wood boilers YET is because its not inside of a building. All wood burning appliances with in a building are subject to epa standards of emissions. Again there not going to ban inside wood stoves because they meet EPA guide lines. EPA phase I and EPA phase II . The average outdoor wood boiler puts off 80.0 grams per hours of emissions (SMOKE), in order to put a outdoor wood boiler inside of a building it would have to meet stage II (phase II ) EPA laws of 6.0 grams per hour of emissions. ( yes thats 6.0 GPH not 60 GPH ) Most modern indoor wood stoves already exceed the EPA's 6.0 GPH ( like mine of 3.5 GPH ) So save your $$ from putting up a building for your OWB. Just trying to help ya out brother.


The EPA can go blow a goat as far as I am concerned. I might also point out that such rules would only apply to new manufacture and with out enforcement would not amount to anything.
Woodboilers are already inside buildings and the EPA isnt doing anything about it.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

bwalker said:


> The EPA can go blow a goat as far as I am concerned. I might also point out that such rules would only apply to new manufacture and with out enforcement would not amount to anything.
> Woodboilers are already inside buildings and the EPA isnt doing anything about it.


There are wood stoves in garages too and is not allowed buy code .......... The EPA is not going to go after 50 OWB. My point is its a waist of time to do so. Most are in a barn/garage and such so you dont have to stand out in the cold to reload / clean and maintain. Thats what i was going to do before i got educated about outdoor wood boilers and went with a higher efficient stove.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 4, 2006)

In my area almost everyone has a sauna, camp and or a garage with a woodstove. I dont think i have ever even seen a EPA stove!
I dont know what its like where you live, but it isnt going to happen here. One township did try to ban them and it was shot down. In another case a city tried to shut a guy down with a boiler and he simply moved it into his poll barn and there was nothing they could do.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 4, 2006)

> There are wood stoves in garages too and is not allowed buy code ..........


 thats all depends on where you live as zoning is a twp and city issue, not a national one. It is not against code to have a wood stove in your garage in my twp.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 4, 2006)

bwalker said:


> thats all depends on where you live as zoning is a twp and city issue, not a national one. It is not against code to have a wood stove in your garage in my twp.


Yeah , O.K. Ben. 
*NFPA 211 
Chapter 9 Solid Fuel- Burning Appliances 

9-2.3 
Solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in any location where gasoline or any other flamable vapors or gasses are likely present 

9-2.4 
Solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in any residential garage 
*


----------



## windthrown (Oct 5, 2006)

*Wood ban in Silicon Valley*

FYI: For a long time now there has been a ban on installing wood burning fireplaces of *all* types in homes built in the Silicon Valley (SF Bay Area). The ban only applies to newer homes built. Old homes with existing fireplaces are exempt, and they do not limit any existing fireplaces from being used there (or restrict remodeling or rebuilding an existing fireplace). Most bans grandfather existing units and restrict new stuff from being installed.


----------



## Schultzz (Oct 5, 2006)

There are wood burning furnaces which have ceramic heat absorbers and secondary burn chambers which boast of 80% efficiency. Try a search and see what you find.


----------



## JAL (Oct 5, 2006)

Here are some wood burning numbers for to think about:

1980 1700 sf house, 2x6 walls, well insulated and I have been burning wood since the house was build. first wood burning appliance was a forced hot air system made by Newmac and burned about 6-7 cords of wood for about 12 years. Then switched to coal and used about 4 tons per year for 4 years. Then stopped using wood or coal to heat with because it was causing too many problems like indoor air quality, dirt, bugs, etc.. 3 years ago I bought an outdoor wood boiler and for the past 3 years have burnt on the average 6 cords of hardwood and 1 1/2 cords of dried pine slab wood from a local sawmill.

Not only am I heating my house but also my domestic hot water with this new system. so with just a slight increase of firewood usage from the old systems I can turn the propane gas off. This is equal to about $3,000.00 a year that the oil company's don't get.:hmm3grin2orange: 

When it comes to outdoor air quality, who cares. I have 117 acres of land and my nearest neighbor is half a mile away.


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 5, 2006)

Who cares about air quality, you must be kidding! 

My and your kids ,thats who!


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

Good gawd Rspike, I hadda look up NFPA to even know what it is. And just when I had you pegged as a law abiding EPA tree hugger type I find out your actually one of us lawless freedom crusaders after all. 

Or have you quit using your EPA regulated garage woodstove since you discovered NFPA law number 9 dash whatever you quoted??:hmm3grin2orange: 

What you don't seem to understand is that quite a few are like BWalker (count me in) and could give a rats rear what the EPA, NFPA, or even the NTPA, NFO, NAFTA, or even STP corporation thinks of our stoves or where we put them. AND where we are lucky enough to live the socialists have not completely taken over our local government and we are still free to choose the course of our lives. Just for giggles I took a look at the stoves at a local dealer, Tractor Supply Corp and could not find a stove with the secondary burn chambers that I believe you say are now required everywhere so how are they selling them? I will admit that their stove stocks are a bit low, maybe 20 in the store. As a matter of fact they still have 1800s style boxwood stoves for sale.
SOooo,,, it is BS that the new style regulated stoves are mandated for indoor use everywhere otherwise how are they still being sold openly here?


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

JeffHK454 said:


> Who cares about air quality, you must be kidding!
> 
> My and your kids ,thats who!



Oh geez do we have to go here??

So does the concern for air quality end with cursing other's choices in wood stoves or does it include your entire life? Do you eat raw food when ever possible, How do you like your steaks? Like do you own a hybrid car and only drive it when absolutely needed? Do you drive it only when it is the only possible mode of transportation? OR are you one of us polluters who drive ordinary cars and go to McDs for supper now and then? What about that computer you are reading this on? isn't it being powered by fossil fuel or are you peddling a generator? Do I need ask more?

As I have said many times, 

I will respect any lover of the environment as better than me when I meet one who takes NOTHING from it unnecessarily,, 

The others are hypocrites who only think they are better than me. 

I'm' off my box, How about you?

I better shut up or I'm going to get the ax on here, oh well I guess.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 5, 2006)

I think ever one that has an outdoor wood stove must be dumb and cant see the somke.
I know I must go though about 300,000,000,000,000 cords a day though my wood stove.
What the Hell ever dude, EPA ROCKS.
lol


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 5, 2006)

Rspike said:


> I post the information for everyone to read for them selves. MS-310 already knows. It lets others decide before putting *BIG $$'s* down. When you buy in indoor wood stove just like most appliances show reports and such and the efficiency of the item. outdoor wood boilers dont have such reports so states are doing the testing. Well there they are.........."the test results". I have asked many time all over the Internet for efficiency reports of OWB. I have called many OWB dealers asking for efficiency measurements and out put emissions and not one would give me any answers. WHY ? Because it wouldn't be wise to advertise there own product as 34% efficient and puts off 80 gph of emissions.



I dont want to keep feeding the fire but, real life and the testing area is diff.
Call Central boiler and talk to david, he will tell you diff.
1-800-248-4681
Thats funny Im on the phone right now soon finding out what he has to say.

MS-310 dosent know about no freaking 80 grams per hour,


----------



## bwalker (Oct 5, 2006)

That does it...I am going to go burn some tires and rail ties just tp pizz RSpike off.
How many grams per hour would burning tires and ties generate?:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## bwalker (Oct 5, 2006)

> Yeah , O.K. Ben.
> NFPA 211
> Chapter 9 Solid Fuel- Burning Appliances
> 
> ...


 NFPA? Who the heck is that?
Edit, just did a little digging. The NFPA isnt even a governmental agency so therefore their regulations are of no concern to me.


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

bwalker said:


> That does it...I am going to go burn some tires and rail ties just tp pizz RSpike off.
> How many grams per hour would burning tires and ties generate?:hmm3grin2orange:



I threw a 205R78-14 in mine tonite, grabbed a chair and some corn hopen the smoke would blow his wayopcorn: and guess what? no smoke. Tomorrow he is getting 235r70-16" or a 10.00-20 if I can get it in the door


----------



## windthrown (Oct 5, 2006)

*OWB burners...*

Yah, I expect to burn 3 trillion cords of wood here this year in our CB OWB, it is that inefficient. But, being as we get all the free firewood that anyone could burn in a lifetime (yes, literally tons of firewood here, readilly available for the cutting if you know the land owners or get permission from the timber company reps to cut any and all the slash that you want), efficiency is just not an issue. Actually we get more wood from windthrow and dead snags than we can possibly burn here, and I just wind up burning a lot of wood in slash piles. We have to by law here... otherwise it is considered a hazard and we are liable. I have burned maybe 100 cords of slash wood and stumps in the past 2 years here? Maybe more. Some of these piles have been as big as a 2 car garage. Many of the commercial timber slash piles near here are as big as a house. We have one huge slash pile left on this property that I cannot get to. It has 2-3 truckloads of red cedar that the previous owner felled and did not truck out for some reason (roads may have mudded out). Now it is half rotted and unsellable... but it is there, and it has to be delt with. I need to clear the road into it though after 10 years of re-growth of alders and blackberries. Anyone out there want free wood in exchange for help? 

As for air quality, we have 105 acres here and smoke is another non-issue. Nearest neighbor is a quarter of a mile away and te smoke does not drift in that direction. Even if it smoked as much as the disinformational pages posted back east by the anti-OWB people, it would be a non-issue. Actually my girlfriend likes the wood smoke smell after I stroke the boiler. And again, we just burn slash anyway, by LAW, and so it all winds up in the atmosphere for your kiddies to breathe. If you do not like that, please go up against the timber laws and lobby here in Oregon and file a complaint. 

Also, I have looked at a lot of energy systems here for this house. Before we bought the CB OWB boiler I looked at and designed a stream-flow pelton wheel generator system. The ROI was about 20 years. It was also very complicated with inverters and such, and the supply is only seasonal. Right now the temps are cold and the stream flows near zero. I also looked at wind, as our neighbor has a wind farm to augment his off-grid diesel generating system. The guy that sold them to him said not to bother, as the payback was never going to happen and he only recommends them for off-grid applications. 

So then we looked at wood burners. My first thought was to put in a Russian fireplace that I saw at a friend's house down by Crater Lake. But they are massive structures, and would require a major remodel of the house here. I like the idea of them, and the only issue with them seems to be the amount of creosote that builds up. They are very efficient though, ad little smoke and/or heat leaves the chimney. We also looked at wood stoves. This is a ranch house with no basement. A radiant free-standing wood stove will not heat this house effectively. There is no way to channel the heat from the stove to teh rest of the house. We would need several stoves, or some distribution ducting system. Not an option. I saw the Greenwood boiler system which is very efficient, but they are inside the home units. They do not build an OWB that I am aware of. We do not have the space to put that type of system in the house here without a major remdel. So... we went looking some more. 

This house had an existing solar hot water system and an electric heated hydronic radiant floor heating system. We started looking at the Woodmaster and other types of OWBs. Wood fired boilers looked like a great idea, as we have an unlimited supply of firewood here. I looked at a lot of OWBs and the various issues, etc. So we called the CB rep here and went up and looked at the system in use, and costs, etc. I was amazed at several things. One is that they smoke very little, compared to all the hype against them. Another was the size of logs that you can toss into an OWB. Large logs. Long logs. Fewer cuts. Less work. No wood splitting. Less labor. Also all the mess, smoke and debris remains outside along with the fire hazard. I was sold on them, right then and there. 

We bought the CB unit last fall. If I had it to do all over again, I would still buy the CB unit. It cost all of $6k for the boiler, and another $1k for parts and a slab and a backhoe to install it. Maybe another $1k in odd labor and gas and the cost of chainsaws to cut wood depreciated over the life of the boiler and the cost ot run the pumps and electronics. In the end, that is a whopping $8k. I do not know how you can pay $25 grand for a boiler system. Our system will pay for itself in less than 6 years, which is a really good return. In the northeast and midwest they can pay for themselves in as little as 3 years. We also save 2.5 MWhr per month of electricity, and all the coal or hydro or NG to produce the electricity and cost and energy losses to deliver it. The bottom line is that we save over $200 a month burning what we would have to burn here in slash anyway, the system is simple and easy and reliable. We can also heat the house as much as we want to. We can run around the house naked in 76 degree heat when it is dumping snow outside in February.... while I run a load of laundry and the dishwahser and still have hot water for a steaming hot shower.... all while paying the local utility company NOTHING for it all. 

Yah... :deadhorse: :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## windthrown (Oct 5, 2006)

*Burning RR ties and tires...*

Hey, there is a thought. We have this huge pile of RR ties here from an old fence system that we tore out. Maybe 50 of them. And lots of tires. They float down the creek here in the rainy season and I cannot take them to the local dump. I have maybe 10 or so. They would make a huge roiling stinking smokey mess if I torched them off in a slash pile... maybe I can toss them into the old trailer here for a grand stinkey smokey messy burn adding plastic and lead and paint to the mix. 

Heh heh heh... 

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 5, 2006)

Absolutely some of the stupids things Ive ever seen on this site where typed in this thread! You think I'm a tree hugger because I think a "oh well , try and catch me" attitude is stupid! 

You can trace everything that's had the crap regulated out of it back to the people that said "they will never catch me" or "screw them it's always been like this" 

I don't know If WFBs are bad or good I just read whats presented, Rspike has supplied a bunch of publicly available info about there short comings with no rebuttals other than...."I don't care about the pollution cause it blows away" .

Please WFB people, change my mind. 

JH


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

JeffHK454 said:


> Absolutely some of the stupids things Ive ever seen on this site where typed in this thread! You think I'm a tree hugger because I think a "oh well , try and catch me" attitude is stupid!
> 
> You can trace everything that's had the crap regulated out of it back to the people that said "they will never catch me" or "screw them it's always been like this"
> 
> ...



Gee, I'm sorry,

Serious rebuttal number 1. My CancerMaster billowing smoke on full fire.

<IMG SRC=http://tinypic.com/2uhpie8.jpg>


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

OK just one more. Same day, same stove, same fire. Sorry, no pics from the internet, just my backyard.

The Cancermaster smoking up three counties (no tires in this fire BWalker)

<IMG SRC=http://tinypic.com/2uhwq37.jpg>


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 5, 2006)

Butch(OH) said:


> OK just one more. Same day, same stove, same fire. Sorry, no pics from the internet, just my backyard.
> 
> The Cancermaster smoking up three counties (no tires in this fire BWalker)
> 
> <IMG SRC=http://tinypic.com/2uhwq37.jpg>



From those pics it looks like it burns very cleanly, who is it manufactured by?

I see you live in Ohio, who distributes them and what size is it sq ft wise? 

I have friend that's in the market for a OWB and has been looking for one that has a good reputation for workmanship and efficiency.

The reason that OWBs take so much abuse is if you type in "Wood fired outdoor boiler" in a Google search you get a 1000 hits and there 95% negative and the 5% that aren't are sites selling them. 

Like it or not 99.9% of opinions nowadays are formed from reading and seeing pics on the net , I'm surprised that there's not a bunch of positive spin websites contesting the misrepresentation of OWBs.

That's assuming they are being dealt a bad hand? 

JH


----------



## bwalker (Oct 5, 2006)

Now you really got me riled up. I am going to add 5 gallons of drain oil to the mix.opcorn:


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 5, 2006)

JeffHK454 said:


> From those pics it looks like it burns very cleanly, who is it manufactured by?
> 
> I see you live in Ohio, who distributes them and what size is it sq ft wise?
> 
> ...



Mine is a Woodmaster and you can find dealer info on thier web site. My dealer is in Wilmont, I am between Columbus and Mansfield. I know what you mean about the net searching and that is one of the reasons I posted these same pics a week or so ago. There are 4 different makes operating within a mile of me and when it gets cold you are more than welcome to PM me and Ill take you on a guided tour.That beats any dealer hype or believing what I say eh? I think part of it is in what a person calls bad smoke. Like it or not there are places in this country where letting a Taco Bell fart in your back yard could land a person in trouble with pollution authorities, I don't live (thankfully) in one of those places. The forced draft boilers will smoke for maybe 2 minutes when coming up to temp from a long off cycle and about the same period of time when fresh wood is loaded but I have personally never seen smoke like some of the web pics even at the worst moment. The natural draft units like Central Boiler will smoke a tad more but again, personally I have never seen a CB smoke like the smoke cloud pics on the internet. Believe it or not I never even considered smoke to be an issue until I read about it on the internet and I have watched the units close to me for several years. Quite obviously there are some issues or they would not be singled out but I think that other things besides boiler design have given them a bad rap and that fuels the fires of regulation irregardless of the real reasons. One is the short stacks that are Std equipment, two is summer operation for domestic water heating and people are outside, three is the fact that the boiler Mfgs used to tell you about half under their breath that a person could use them for an incinerator. I have been told that 20 times at shows or by dealers. I am also sure that rotten or wet wood would add to smoke. A boiler system is a major investment, one thing the antis have right, and you should do some research. You will find precious few dissatisfied boiler owners in real life, one of the reasons I went with one. Fuel usage is going to be greater than an inside unit of the same efficiency for a number of reasons one of them being there is heat loss through the door, pumps and lines even with insulation. Another reason is the entire home is heated unlike most stoves that heat a room or two. But i seriously doubt that a properly installed one would use 25 cords as I have read on the 'net about. The owners I have talked to who have switched say about 25% more wood used but they are all heating domestic water too.
Have a nice evening


----------



## Rspike (Oct 5, 2006)

*"Please WFB people, change my mind"*



JeffHK454 said:


> Absolutely some of the stupids things Ive ever seen on this site where typed in this thread! You think I'm a tree hugger because I think a "oh well , try and catch me" attitude is stupid!
> 
> You can trace everything that's had the crap regulated out of it back to the people that said "they will never catch me" or "screw them it's always been like this"
> 
> ...


Yeah , Thats what i have been asking and nothing has come up in the two different threads. Its like when it get down to it and information is posted its like a bunch a kids laying on there back , kicking, scratching and screaming. Well my pick up truck is from the 1960 and it dont smoke , no emissions and it gets 80 miles to the gallon of gas. ........... Yeah , right. Anybody can say anything , lets see some tests. Any proof on the other side of the fence ? And the talk about smoking up the neighborhood with tires and RR ties is just childish. Again , when the chips are down some just lay on there backs kicking and screaming.


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 5, 2006)

Is the proof of efficiency the smoke out the stack, is it that simple? I do know in the auto industry that just because you can't see pollutants doesn't mean there not there. Did that make sense? 

Rspike, when your stove is running at its least efficient , like in start-up does it smoke? If your stove had thermostatically controlled feed air how much would it effect efficiency? 

I know these will be guesstimates but I'm trying to get an idea of how far the two are from each other in terms of burn quality. 

Jeff


----------



## Rspike (Oct 5, 2006)

JeffHK454 said:


> Is the proof of efficiency the smoke out the stack, is it that simple? I do know in the auto industry that just because you can't see pollutants doesn't mean there not there. Did that make sense?
> 
> Rspike, when your stove is running at its least efficient , like in start-up does it smoke? If your stove had thermostatically controlled feed air how much would it effect efficiency?
> 
> ...


Yes , My stove will smoke on a reload until the wood is chared ( 10 minutes at the start up of every load ) a load will run any where from 4 hours to 12 hours depending on how much wood is loaded. All wood should be seasoned to get max BTU's out of the wood. Here is my stove pipe and wood burning. Note the difference of smoke stains from an EPA stove to a outdoor wood boiler ( Butch(OH) pic's ) Pic #1 House stove Pic #2 shop stove pic #3 Butch(OH) OWBoiler pipe. 
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/Roospike/1-1.jpg">
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/Roospike/4.jpg">
<IMG SRC=http://tinypic.com/2uhpie8.jpg>


----------



## Rspike (Oct 5, 2006)

JeffHK454 said:


> Is the proof of efficiency the smoke out the stack, is it that simple? I do know in the auto industry that just because you can't see pollutants doesn't mean there not there. Did that make sense?
> 
> 
> Jeff


Your understanding is correct to say that its not just that simple. Stoves are tested in a lab of emissions out put. The 3 biggest killers of OWBoilers is #1 they cycle off and on and smoke every time on start up , #2 No secondary burn chamber to burn the smoke ( thus is another reason they are only 25%-50% efficient ) and the third #3 is the outer water jacket that cools the main burn chamber and lowers combustion and burn box temps.


----------



## JAL (Oct 6, 2006)

Try this link for some owner/user chit-chat. There are users and sellers that are in this group so you will get both sides of the coin on views.

[email protected]

Here is a sample of one:

"scottsworth wrote:
>
> It took me about 2 months in all, from pouring the
> concrete pad (we were doing a lot of concrete patio stuff here last
> year anyway), to collecting the boiler in our diesel PU, to having
> it loaded onto the pad with a backhoe to wiring and plumbing it.
> Then filling it with water, adding corrosion inhibitor and testing
> it, and adding the wood and firing it up...
>
> As for the hot water heat recovery, if you have a flat plate HX you
> will be fine. A side-arm takes a little longer to recover the heat
> from teh boiler to the water heater.
>

I think our total time from delivery to actually using the system was 3 
months. We had our foundation ready, our dealer delivered the stove and 
set it perfectly on the foundation for us. They also had all the 
supplies we needed, all the PEX hose and even gave us the crimping tool 
to use as long as we needed it.

The only problem we had that we couldn't find answers to easily was an 
issue with water quality, we had conflicting information and were 
reluctant to do anything wrong after making such a big investment in all 
of this. We had to find another source for water to fill the boiler 
because our well water is too salty. After calling our dealer and CB 
one last time, we went ahead and filled the boiler and used one jug of 
anti-corrosive, which worked out fine. After the first 24 hours of 
running the pump to circulate, the pH tested 8.0 so all is well. 
Apparently there has been a change in the anti corrosive but the 
instruction book still has the older information. Or something. 
Anyway, that was the only real problem we had. We were understandably 
reluctant to "just go ahead" and fill the boiler when the book said we 
had to have a starting pH of 6.5 and our water tested 6.0. I bought 5 
gallon jugs of de-ionized water from a local water company to make up 
the difference between the rain water we had collected and what we 
needed. I think we had 140 gallons of rain water, which we ran through 
a makeshift filter of clean cotton T-shirts. The first pH test after 
running the pump for 24 hours was fine, like 8.0, so we knew it was OK. 

We do have the side-arm water heater exchanger, and I'm happy with my 
water supply. I have not yet run out of hot water, and I've tried my 
best. I think the flat plate exchanger was quite a bit more expensive, 
and we thought we would be fine with the side arm. I don't remember the 
difference in recovery rates between the two, but we decided it wasn't 
worth the extra expense for us. There are four of us in the household, 
and we have a 50 gallon water heater, so we should be fine even after 
our boys decide that daily showers are a real virtue. I have been using 
hot water for all towel loads and anything else I want extra clean, 
before when we used propane to heat our water I almost never used really 
hot water.

Today is our second day of heating the house. We heated one day last 
week and now today temps are low enough that the blower has come on 
several times during the night. My husband installed a valve and 
temperature switch so that when the thermostat calls for heat, the valve 
to the heat exchanger in the furnace plenum opens and water circulates. 
Then, when the temperature comes up in the heat exchanger, the blower 
starts. He wanted it this way so that we weren't blowing cold air 
around for a few minutes, and it is working perfectly. We are very 
pleased, and our house is comfortable.

My father has heated with and indoor wood stove for about 30 years, and 
he told us that we would be using double the wood that he uses. It is 
not cold enough yet to know for sure, but so far I think we are *not* 
using double the wood that an indoor stove uses. I know there are many 
variables involved, but we are keeping a small-ish fire going most days, 
and only use 3 logs per day on average. This is nice dry maple and oak, 
about 20 inch logs. For sure, I don't miss all the smoke, and the bugs 
and spiders that come in on firewood when it's hauled into the basement!"


----------



## windthrown (Oct 6, 2006)

*OWB disinformation campaign*



JeffHK454 said:


> Absolutely some of the stupids things Ive ever seen on this site where typed in this thread! You think I'm a tree hugger because I think a "oh well , try and catch me" attitude is stupid!
> 
> You can trace everything that's had the crap regulated out of it back to the people that said "they will never catch me" or "screw them it's always been like this"
> 
> ...



There are many OWB sites on the web. You can do a Google search yourself and you will find most of it is biased against OWBs. The pollution issue is mainly BS and many of us have posted photos showing the little amount of smoke that our OWBs are giving off as they are being used. Note that we have Woodmasters, Central Boilers and some custom made units. Most show very little or no smoke, which in fact is the way that most of these system run most of the time. We are not all making this up. I was amazed when I saw a Central Boiler unit in use when we went to look at them. I had real all this BS about how smokey they are. Not so. My EPA fireplace smokes a lot more than the CB OWB does here. But that is my personal point of view... so lets look at one of your so-called 'publicaly available info about the short somings' of OWBs on the web. A common one posted by the state of New York is: 

http://www.woodheat.org/technology/NYSOBreport.pdf

This site is obviously anti-OWB slanted. They site 'typical' designs but leave out the details and names of boilers. The graphic of the OWB chimney comparison to a house chimney is absurd. Our standard CB boiler stack is well above our house roofline here. They show a stubby stack that barely clears the OWB roof, and compare that to a two story house chimney. Now... is that a factual data being reported to the public? No... looking further they show photos of really smokey OWBs in so-called 'common' operation. They do not say where the OWBs are, what the manufactures are that are burning, and what is being burned in them. No, they leave out those details becasue that would not support their claim. If they were non-biased, they would post this information. Oh, but they go on and report "limited study" details by the EPA and all the rest of the data is shown comparing everything to that LIMITED STUDY. Oh, but based on that information, we can extrapolate all this evil and horror about OWBs and disinform the public. And pile on facts about all wood smoke, or any smoke for that matter, and make all sorts of claims that do not really relate directly to OWBs in particular, say as compared to an old fireplace. Then they refute the efficiency of using wood boilers, the 'real' cost of wood compares to burning gas and oil. Somehow their math says that I am not really saving any money here... and I will not recover my investment, but my wallet says otherwise. Our electric bill is $200 less a month this year! Oh, but they go on about other regulations and states that have regulated OWBs. Then they post information about NY state regulations. Then... they actually post some good data about why you should not burn pressure treated wood, tires, garbage, etc. in OWBs. This is interesting, as they show photos of OWBs that are obviously being misused and burning something other than seasoned firewood. Odd twist... then they go on to state that the boiler tests were not consistant nor is there a testing standard, and thus the data that is posted is varied. Then they say that the testing should be considered as a whole. Why is that? If the testing is BS, of what value is the total sum of the testing results? So, what exactly on this NEW YORK STATE OFFICIAL SITE relavent to anything regarding outdoor wood boilers? Other than to show some smokey boiler photos, say that some 50 people made complaints, and make wild claims based on "varied" testing results????  

I could pick apart many other sites, but I guess the anti-OWB people will not care about facts or claims or accurate testing or actual photos posted by many of us here. Disinformation is out there and being digested by the masses every day, and spit back out so much and so often as to confirm the original disinformation... :bang:


----------



## Rspike (Oct 6, 2006)

SOooooooooooo ..... Your saying that everybody should take "your" word for it over state testing and EPA testing of 7 different brands of outdoor wood boilers? Well why not just bring back the old wood stoves and cook stoves that was around before the EPA stoves ? The old stoves heated the house and saved on electric , Natural gas , LP and fuel oil . Jim Bob says " there fine and nothing wrong with them and they dont smoke" There you have , If Jim Bob says there ok and dont smoke then it must be official no matter what state test and EPA test say. Common .......... Lets see some real #'s Want to see lab test that say otherwise. All lab test show 25%-50% efficiency and 50-80 grams per hour of emissions. If that were any better, than the outdoor wood boiler companies would have the lab test to show it. PS The outdoor wood boiler companies do have lab test but it would not be wise to post the #'s and try to sell stoves. It would be like Ford trying to sell new pick up truck that only get 5 miles to the gallon. Jim Bob's word is not proof enough to change minds over state and EPA test. Thats why there are bans on outdoor wood boilers.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 6, 2006)




----------



## Rspike (Oct 6, 2006)




----------



## Rspike (Oct 6, 2006)

*http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/burnwood.htm#owfb*

Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the high costs of oil and natural gas, a growing number of people in Massachusetts and elsewhere across the country are looking at outdoor wood-fired boilers as potential money-saving solutions for heating their homes. 

These units are typically located outside the buildings they heat in small, insulated sheds with short smokestacks (usually no more than six to ten feet tall). They burn wood to heat water that is piped underground to provide heat and hot water to occupied buildings.

Outdoor wood-fired boilers are substantially dirtier and less efficient than most other home heating technologies. An investigation by the New York State Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau found that even when used properly, one of these units emits as much fine particle pollution as:

2 heavy-duty diesel trucks 
12 EPA-certified indoor wood stoves 
45 passenger cars 
1,000 homes with oil heat 
1,800 homes with natural gas heat 
NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast States, has also completed an Assessment of Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers.

With their large, smoldering fires and short smokestacks, outdoor wood boilers create heavy smoke and release it close to the ground, where it lingers and exposes everyone in the area to nuisance conditions and health risks. Although these units are designed to burn dry, seasoned wood, some people use them to burn green wood, which generates much more smoke, and even household trash or construction debris, which not only can release a harmful array of chemicals but is also against state law. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not established emission limits for outdoor wood-fired boilers. Even when these units are operated according to manufacturers' instructions, they often create nuisance conditions that are prohibited by state air quality regulations. Municipal fire departments and boards of health also have the authority to control outdoor wood-fired boilers, and some have enacted by-laws or ordinances that prohibit or limit the use of these units.

MassDEP and local health boards have taken enforcement actions against people who own and operate units that have caused excessive odor or smoke. Regardless of how much a unit might have cost to install, sometimes the only way to resolve the nuisance conditions an outdoor wood boiler creates is to stop using it permanently.

If you are thinking about buying an outdoor wood-fired boiler, first check to be sure it is legal to install and operate one in your community, and if so, whether there are any specific restrictions you need to know about. Second, consider the impacts an outdoor wood-fired boiler could have on your neighbors and their property. Finally, if you do purchase a unit, never use it to burn anything other than dry firewood, and to the extent you can, operate it only during the cold weather months.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 6, 2006)

*New York Attorney General's report.*

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/Petition.pdf
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/August 2005.pdf


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 6, 2006)

*OWB Victims ?*

OK, full disclosure here: I don't like OWB. There, it's done!:biggrinbounce2: 
Here's why: except for only one maker, all the OWB's are like the old Ashley wood stoves that gave wood burning the bad rap: creosote makers. Push in the wood, damp the fool down, make creosote to make chimney fires, bother the neighbors...seriously bother. It stinks. It's why wood stove manufactureres and the EPA spent the time and $$$$ to engineer stoves that burn cleaner and , repeat, AND more efficient. Damn, when we bought our first "EPA stove" in 1990, it saved me near 1/3 of the wood mass for heating. No bull. Look it up. 
Now, I don't much care for those ordinances and rules on behavior. But when you get into someone's face, then what do you do ? 9mm into the OWB ???  Give me the Glock John.
Point numero 3: the OWB are frankly silly. You need a whole lot of plumbing, power, valves, switches, anti-freeze, etcc... to make the beast operate. Forget the fact that you have take your little body outdoors ( OUTDOORS !) to feed the beast. You want to go out at oh-dark-hundred on a balmy February morn to load the thing ? 
Still think they're a good idea ? What do you do when the power goes ? Yes, Downeast at least, we have outages at least 3-7 days a year.  Rant over. 
Love to you all OWB people.:rockn:


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 6, 2006)

OK, full disclosure here: I don't like OWB. There, it's done

I'll drink to that  

And I don't like the government shoving regulation down my throat and I don't trust them any farther than I can throw one of the fat butt bureaucrats.
There I have come clean too.

Facts in my case are
I place more importance on having the fire outside of the house than some do.
When I added in the cost of a masonry chimney to the cost of a inside stove or furnace the total installation costs come a lot closer than the anti crowd likes to crow about
I live with-in eye site of 5 boilers so I didn't have to rely on the web for my information. All are satisfied and no horror stories of train loads of wood needed.
I see no smoke clouds, just wisps when shut down followed by a brief period of smoke when starting up.
I have a near endless supply of wood on my farm and enjoy cutting wood so saving a pick up load a year is of no consequence to me.
I have two buildings to heat and that would have required two stoves and two chimneys (and don't like fabricated steel chimney systems) 
Assuming steady gas prices and adding some money for system power and maintenance my boiler will be paid for in 2 1/2 years and that is figuring only the house heat and water for 8 months.
My system has been running for a month now and I have three neighbors, one across the road. One beside me about 150 feet an one behind me same distance. I actually asked them if it was annoying them in any way, answer, no.
My wood usage so far is in line with the demands placed upon it which is minimal heat and my domestic water.

I cannot vouch for particulate emissions, just smoke and have provided pictures. As for EPA supplied data and pictures I can prove that their smoke pictures are typical EPA hype so why would I trust the data, sorry Spike. 

Anyone who would like an honest look at boiler operation is a welcome guest. I surely cant stop them from posting here what they see and smell.

I am stepping out of here, simple subject getting awfully deep for my simple mind. Have fun guys.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 6, 2006)

*You Stihl-Ho You*

Hey you Stihl-Ho You...you're right on target. It works where you are: large woodlot, buildings other than a home to heat, steady large suplly need. Go for it.
Our experience is with semi-rural/suburban burners with little experience with wood boilers or stoves. 
Now, step away from the boiler


----------



## windthrown (Oct 6, 2006)

*Smoke and mirrors*

Yes, post MORE disinformation photos showing the same smokey OWBs there. Collect all the smokey OWB photos that you can find and post as many as possible. Make sure that you do not inform anyone where the photos were taken, when they were taken, where they came from, and what type of OWB they are, and what is burning in them. Eventually you will glaze the public's mind about what public policy should be. Make sure that you extrapolate bogus information from vague testing and make sweeping assumptions from that data and claim that it can be summarised to support your claims that all OWBs should be banned or regulated, or even better, LICENSED so that the state can collect a fee for people using them. 

Ooooooooooh, the report posted on the web site if from the *state of NY*.... thus anything they post should be accurate and correct, even if they say right in the report that the testing was varied and not based on any standards. They do not say what is burning in the OWB photos. Tires? Railroad ties? Used motor oil? They do not say when the photos were taken. Or where. Canada? Mexico? Iraq? They do not even say what brands or types of boilers were tested in the data that they post. Oh, they tested 7 out of what, 50 or so? Bozo boilers, Inc? Then they should tell me, a citizen of the *state of OREGON* what I should and should not believe based on vague and unsubstantiated data and photos? 

Methinks not. I believe what I see and know to be true, and not what the state of NY attourney general tells me to believe. I swear, some of the idiots in this place are even dumber than some of the morons over on the Mother Earth News energy group. And hey Bubba, my name ain't Jim Bob. I have several advanced degrees in engineering, so I am, 'Dr James Robert,' to you. But just the same, that'll be me there with Darryl and my other brother Derryl burning tires in your front yard next week. We will take several photos of it, retouch them digitally, and post them on this site to "inform" the public about how badly your EPA certified and approved stove burns. 

:notrolls2:


----------



## laynes69 (Oct 6, 2006)

I dont own an epa wood stove, or an owb. I know people with both and both are happy. I have never seen the owb belching out smoke around here. My wood furnace isnt near an epa rated appliance, but you just need to know how to burn it. I use well seasoned wood, I can burn my indoor wood furnace all night and have no smoke outside. If you peek thorough the door, a nice rolling ball of flames all night. Now If I added green wood and closed the dampers all of the way, it would belch out smoke probably worse than a owb. Alot of it has to do with the operator, whether its an epa stove, wood furnace, or an owb. Dont overload a woodburner with green wood and starve it for air, and all will be well. Anyway you look at it, the familys are warm and happy. Some dont like the indoor mess of firewood, and some dont mind. Its all about opinions, which are like A--holes everyones got one.


----------



## cord arrow (Oct 6, 2006)

windtossed said:


> I swear, some of the idiots in this place are even dumber than some of the morons over on the Mother Earth News energy group.



agreed, but no matter how mis-directed, you've got to admire their enthusiasm.


----------



## Chief291 (Oct 6, 2006)

Let's take a bigger look at this so called OWB problem. 

More OWB's = less dependency on oil,ng,elect., etc.
Less dependency = less profit for the big corps.
Less profit = less campaign contributions for politicians

And we all know our politicians receive kick back from these big corps. under the disguise of campaign contributions. If the EPA is so worried about air quality why aren't they going after these big corporations (because the paid off politicians wont let them) 

As far as the anti-owb pictures I don't believe anything I see on the inter-net. I have a Heatmor and I have been burning GREEN hemlock and white pine since Aug. and have not even come close to producing that much smoke, not even on start up.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 6, 2006)

It's amazing some of you feel so bright name calling others that have at least supplied data. It's as if your disbelief in the findings proves your point. "I don't see no smoke from MY boiler, so the data is all B.S." You smart ones should try breathing your car's tail pipe for a while there's no smoke.


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 6, 2006)

windthrown said:


> Yes, post MORE disinformation photos showing the same smokey OWBs there. Collect all the smokey OWB photos that you can find and post as many as possible. Make sure that you do not inform anyone where the photos were taken, when they were taken, where they came from, and what type of OWB they are, and what is burning in them. Eventually you will glaze the public's mind about what public policy should be. Make sure that you extrapolate bogus information from vague testing and make sweeping assumptions from that data and claim that it can be summarised to support your claims that all OWBs should be banned or regulated, or even better, LICENSED so that the state can collect a fee for people using them.
> 
> Ooooooooooh, the report posted on the web site if from the *state of NY*.... thus anything they post should be accurate and correct, even if they say right in the report that the testing was varied and not based on any standards. They do not say what is burning in the OWB photos. Tires? Railroad ties? Used motor oil? They do not say when the photos were taken. Or where. Canada? Mexico? Iraq? They do not even say what brands or types of boilers were tested in the data that they post. Oh, they tested 7 out of what, 50 or so? Bozo boilers, Inc? Then they should tell me, a citizen of the *state of OREGON* what I should and should not believe based on vague and unsubstantiated data and photos?
> 
> ...



Excellent rant!

In the whole scheme of things who will benefit from picking out one type wood burning style and condemning it? If what you and others say is true about a large portion of the info being unsubstantiated and some just plain false who's reaping the benefits ? Is it the EPA stove manufacturers, the pellet/bio mass furnace people or is it the natural gas producers and suppliers. 

JH


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 6, 2006)

*Glock Ban and OWB Ban*

Step away from that OWB. Way away.....I'm about to do a 9mm ban. opcorn: 
The enthusiasm and correctness is overwhelming. :taped: 
...and to all a good night. umpkin2:


----------



## hamradio (Oct 6, 2006)

All I've got to say is-
What are they burning in those things in some of those pics?!?! Some wood that they cut from a healthy growing tree that day? A relative has one, it emits a little bit of smoke, but I think the key would be dry wood. He burns a lot in it; he had to have his firebox rebuilt at least once.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 6, 2006)

I don't think anyone here is against outdoor boilers. We are all on the arborist site...after all It's just that some of us beleive that doing the extra enginering to make a wood burner less polutant is a worthy cause. What's all the crying about you babies? Nobody said ban them, they just said they should be improved!! 
All B.S. ASIDE WE ALL BENIFIT FROM LAWS THAT REDUCE POLLUTION, BE IT FROM AUTOS, FACTORIES, POWER PLANTS, OR CHAIN SAWS, OR WOOD HEATING.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 6, 2006)

hamradio said:


> All I've got to say is-
> What are they burning in those things in some of those pics?!?!



Punky old willow.

BTW my Dad is W9FTE, and was AAR5NQ in MARS radio before the BS drove him out. 

I operated NNNCOW during Gulf I as a USMC R/O.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 7, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> I don't think anyone here is against outdoor boilers. We are all on the arborist site...after all It's just that some of us beleive that doing the extra enginering to make a wood burner less polutant is a worthy cause. What's all the crying about you babies? Nobody said ban them, they just said they should be improved!!
> All B.S. ASIDE WE ALL BENIFIT FROM LAWS THAT REDUCE POLLUTION, BE IT FROM AUTOS, FACTORIES, POWER PLANTS, OR CHAIN SAWS, OR WOOD HEATING.


Very well said ............ I'm glad someone reads it the way I've been trying to post it. THANK YOU!


----------



## JAL (Oct 7, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> I don't think anyone here is against outdoor boilers. We are all on the arborist site...after all It's just that some of us beleive that doing the extra enginering to make a wood burner less polutant is a worthy cause. What's all the crying about you babies? Nobody said ban them, they just said they should be improved!!
> All B.S. ASIDE WE ALL BENIFIT FROM LAWS THAT REDUCE POLLUTION, BE IT FROM AUTOS, FACTORIES, POWER PLANTS, OR CHAIN SAWS, OR WOOD HEATING.


I will second the motion of the distinguished gentleman Rspike  

Does anybody have some real hard facts as to which OWB is the "Best in The Class"? I thought that my CB was the best when I bought It. So I need some help here because I was thinking maybe of putting the CB out to pasture and getting a new one. 

No BS Please.


----------



## hamradio (Oct 7, 2006)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Punky old willow.
> 
> BTW my Dad is W9FTE, and was AAR5NQ in MARS radio before the BS drove him out.
> 
> I operated NNNCOW during Gulf I as a USMC R/O.



For privacy issues, I'm not going to say my suffix, but I'm a KC0, and a general.


----------



## windthrown (Oct 7, 2006)

*Smoke and mirrors...*



DanMan1 said:


> It's amazing some of you feel so bright name calling others that have at least supplied data. It's as if your disbelief in the findings proves your point. "I don't see no smoke from MY boiler, so the data is all B.S." You smart ones should try breathing your car's tail pipe for a while there's no smoke.



My beef is not that its my smoke vs their smoke... my beef is that the many anti-OWB posts on the web do not list any substantial data. It all looks kosher on the surface, but looking at the details there is not a single name of any outdoor wood boiler company, there is no information on the photographs posted, and they collectively treat all OWBs as if they were an average. Nothing specific, other than "boiler F had yadda yadda" results. The data is so variable that it fails statistical analysls. They even admit that there is no standard in their testing and that the testing was VARIED. If it fails that criteria, it has no real value other than smoke and mirrors. Hence it is worthless data, supplied or otherwise.

If all OWBs are that bad, why do they not post data from wood boiler testing that is the same for each and every boiler. Why do they not post information on what is burning in the boilers and what brand of boilers are burning in the photos, with dates, locations, etc. Give us data that can be scientifically reproduced. Show us examples of abusers that we can verify for ourselves. That kind of data has tangable value, not some grouped class of sweeping claims based on assumptions or summations of variable data taken from "Brand A through F." 

Also if you look at the New England anti-OWB site they show a CB boiler that is overboiling with steam, not smoke. When challanged by the legal team of CB, they said that they got the photo second hand from Michigan state, and thus it is valid as an example. Again, if OWBs are all bad, why all the need for varied testing data and deception? Any *real* reproducable findings and failings wood speak for itself. Onsey-twosey example of bad OWB use does not constitute the need to regulate the entire industry. 

Show me valid numbers... not smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 8, 2006)

> They even admit that there is no standard in their testing and that the testing


RIGHT ,There are no standard for outdoor wood boilers , YET. EPA has standards for indoor wood stoves but not outdoor and thus is the reason for the testing. 

Also ......... do you really think the EPA and or New York lab test are really going to be testing these stoves with tires ? com-on man be serious .

You also mentioned no names of stoves are stated ..... I'm sure there would be a big court beef if names were mentioned. What difference really does it make in the mits of testing? There testing many stoves (OWB ) and coming up with standards , there not out to damn one or two stove companys. There all testing low anyway . 

The EPA is going to work with OWB companies to get the very best efficiency and emmishions and have many test runs before they make standards for OWB . 

When emissions testing was being done on indoor wood stoves they worked with many stove companies to got the best emissions per stove model ( ie cat stoves have one standard , non cat stoves have another set of standards ) They didnt go out and post names of all the stove companies from worst to best. Thats not what it all about. 

There is nothing to bitc about ......its going to do nothing but get better. Less smoke is 1 thing and the big one to owners to new stoves is going to be higher efficiency !! Whats wrong with that ??? 

My name would be on the list for an outdoor wood boiler if they burned less wood and smoked less. Anybody that does there research and half a brain wouldn't buy a OWB that only gets 35% efficiency. Would you buy a electric furnace that got 35% efficiency ? He(( NO you wouldnt. And i wouldn't either. I sure in the heck am not going to put down $7,000.00 for a OWB thats not going to perform even if i cut my own wood and its free. 

Times are going to be changing and there going to be changing for the better for owners of new outdoor wood boilers. They might even come up with add-ons for pre existing OWB to burn more efficient and less wood.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 8, 2006)

I would think that its going to be quit difficult to get OWB efficancy up to the level of a cat stove. The on and of cycle of operation is a hinderance to this and I dont see a way around it.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 8, 2006)

bwalker said:


> I would think that its going to be quit difficult to get OWB efficancy up to the level of a cat stove. The on and of cycle of operation is a hinderance to this and I dont see a way around it.


Very true , What ever the out come ........the OWB will have its own standards and emissions level. Its going to be interesting. They might have to think "outside of the box" and come up with something totally different to work with/on OWB.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 9, 2006)

I was reading a lot of posts and threads at the Mother Earth Forum the last few days ........... reading from all the outdoor wood boiler *owners* that most of them are burning 9-12 cords of wood a year in there OWB! Wow , thats a lot of wood. Some OWB users even burning 16-20 cords of wood a year. 

As most mention thats not only there heating there house there also heating there hot water so its a big savings. "big savings"? My NG hot water heater cost me $30. a month and thats with the $11. user charge to have it and all the b.s. taxes and fees at about $7.-$9. put the NG its self at $10. Still to the fact it still $30. cost.($360. a year) but the use of 9-12 cords of wood cant cover the cost of hot water.
A lot of wood users wood is free but at buying wood at $150.oo a cord is still only 2.2 cords of wood. so that would be for me at 3.75 cords home heating (indoor EPA wood stove) + 2.2 cords water heating = 6 total cords . Where is the other 3-6 cords of wood the (9-12 cords of year users) and the 10-14 cords extra (of wood users of 16-20 cords) wood going ?

At dollars per cord of $150. a cord thats an extra $450.00-$900.00 & $1,500.00-$2,100.00 extra wood used a year! I could buy me a brand new top of the line wood stove every year and still save money from natural gas.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 9, 2006)

Rspike said:


> I was reading a lot of posts and threads at the Mother Earth Forum the last few days ........... reading from all the outdoor wood boiler *owners* that most of them are burning 9-12 cords of wood a year in there OWB! Wow , thats a lot of wood. Some OWB users even burning 16-20 cords of wood a year.
> 
> As most mention thats not only there heating there house there also heating there hot water so its a big savings. "big savings"? My NG hot water heater cost me $30. a month and thats with the $11. user charge to have it and all the b.s. taxes and fees at about $7.-$9. put the NG its self at $10. Still to the fact it still $30. cost.($360. a year) but the use of 9-12 cords of wood cant cover the cost of hot water.
> A lot of wood users wood is free but at buying wood at $150.oo a cord is still only 2.2 cords of wood. so that would be for me at 3.75 cords home heating (indoor EPA wood stove) + 2.2 cords water heating = 6 total cords . Where is the other 3-6 cords of wood the (9-12 cords of year users) and the 10-14 cords extra (of wood users of 16-20 cords) wood going ?
> ...




What where they heating to use 9 to 12 cord a year.... Plus remember I have talked to people that have only burnt 3 face cords a year also...... A cord is 4ft by 4ft by 8 ft...... anyways EPA hasnt even did any thing about these stoves, they have been working with the companys to try to do a better job on GPH. 
OWB are loved by alot of people and hated, I like them cuz I can have it running and dont worrie about my house burning down. (I know you can pervent this by cleaning and being very careful im just a worrie wort over my family from getting hurt thats y I like it out doors). 
YOu give up some thing to get some thing guys. There is about 10 more resons I like it better then my add on but maybe on a diff thread.

JUst found some more INFO>>>>>Over the period from 1980-1998, indoor wood burning was responsible for 1,541,800 fires; $1.024 billion dollars in property loss; and 3,275 deaths (The (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research, U.S. Home heating Fire Patterns, June 2001.

3275 deaths, its worth it to me to have it out side.


----------



## hamradio (Oct 9, 2006)

Ok. I know a normal cord is 4x4x8, what what is with all the face cord, fireplace cord, etc crap? Is a face cord a normal cord? What the hecks a fireplace cord?


----------



## bwalker (Oct 9, 2006)

I burn between 8-12 cords of wood per year. My house was is new construction and is about 2200sq feet with lots of windows and a walk out basement.
I am also in the UP Of Mi where we have real winter, not like Ohio, or Illinois.
Somebody living in lower MI, Ohio, Illinois or Indiana is going to use the same amount of wood as I do.
I paid $95 per cord this year, but have paid %45 per cprd three years ago. There has been a shortage of pulp around here for the last few years so prices are higher than normal.
10 cords X $95 = $950. Not too bad considering I was using about $4-600 a month in propane prior to owning my boiler.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Oct 9, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> JUst found some more INFO>>>>>Over the period from 1980-1998, indoor wood burning was responsible for 1,541,800 fires; $1.024 billion dollars in property loss; and 3,275 deaths (The (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research, U.S. Home heating Fire Patterns, June 2001.
> 
> 3275 deaths, its worth it to me to have it out side.





Are these figures world wide? Can you post a link to the site where you obtained them?


The only figures I could find (oddly covering the exact same time frame) Were not only _much_ lower but included every type of heating _other_ than A conventional furnace or water heater. ie Kero, electric space heaters, portable propane heaters, etc.


----------



## windthrown (Oct 10, 2006)

*The UP... that's cold...*



bwalker said:


> I burn between 8-12 cords of wood per year. My house was is new construction and is about 2200sq feet with lots of windows and a walk out basement.
> I am also in the UP Of Mi where we have real winter, not like Ohio, or Illinois.
> Somebody living in lower MI, Ohio, Illinois or Indiana is going to use the same amount of wood as I do.
> I paid $95 per cord this year, but have paid %45 per cprd three years ago. There has been a shortage of pulp around here for the last few years so prices are higher than normal.
> 10 cords X $95 = $950. Not too bad considering I was using about $4-600 a month in propane prior to owning my boiler.



My mom was born in Ishpeming, MI (UP). My grandfather was a dentist there stating about 100 years ago. They became snowbirds and moved to Florida in the 1920s. Too cold in winter on the UP. 8-12 cords sounds about right for that kind of place. A winter there is very real and very cold. So much colder compared to what we get here.  

We have a newer house with about 2200 sq ft here and a lot of glass too, and we burn from 3 to 5 full cords a year of medium density stuff, mostly Doug fir and red alder. People with drafty old poorly insulated houses and not so great fireplaces around here burn 6-8 cords. $95 for a cord of firewood is still cheap compared to what they get for them here. $150 is common in Oregon for Madrone or oak. $300 in California (for Madrone). We get our wood for free here... pleanty of windthrow and snags.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 10, 2006)

*Big Bucks to Heat in the U.P. !*



bwalker said:


> I burn between 8-12 cords of wood per year. My house was is new construction and is about 2200sq feet with lots of windows and a walk out basement.
> I am also in the UP Of Mi where we have real winter, not like Ohio, or Illinois.
> Somebody living in lower MI, Ohio, Illinois or Indiana is going to use the same amount of wood as I do.
> I paid $95 per cord this year, but have paid %45 per cprd three years ago.
> 10 cords X $95 = $950. Not too bad considering I was using about $4-600 a month in propane prior to owning my boiler.



*For that size home that's a lot of wood. Hope it's really those silly "face cords"  !!! What stove(s) or wood boiler you got ? House insulated well and tight ? Downeast here, same latitude, even an old farmhouse with little or no insulation and the same size as yours will use 8-10 cords/year of mixed hardwoods. Ours is about 1600 ft², built ourselves damn tight and insulated, 2 EPA stoves ( Jotul Oslo non-cat, and a VC Encore cat) heating 100%, 24/7 takes 3-4 cords/year for heat only. 
The water heater is a propane tankless on-demand Rinnai using about $25/month at winter peak along with the cook stove and dryer.
Firewood is harvested each winter from our woodlot for the following winter. $95/cord delivered is a good deal even for log lengths iof they're good hardwood.
I'll use some softwood, spruce and fir, only for shoulder season quick fires. Also use the softs for the workshop stove (Tempwood steel toploader), and for the hot tub (Snorkel stove ). Too many stoves, huh ?  *


----------



## bwalker (Oct 10, 2006)

> My mom was born in Ishpeming, MI (UP). My grandfather was a dentist there stating about 100 years ago. They became snowbirds and moved to Florida in the 1920s. Too cold in winter on the UP. 8-12 cords sounds about right for that kind of place. A winter there is very real and very cold. So much colder compared to what we get here.


 Small world. Ish is only 5 miles away from where I live.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 10, 2006)

Logbutcher, Maine doesnt get the snow and wind like we do. And depending on where your at in Maine it doesnt get as cold either.
I also burn all green wood and in the early part of the fall burn junk wood like Aspen, white pine, hemlock, white birch, cedar etc.
I also dont have to worry about tending 2 stoves, bugs/bark in the house, cleaning chimneys, smoke/smell in the house and, increased insurance/fire risk.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 10, 2006)

RaisedByWolves said:


> Are these figures world wide? Can you post a link to the site where you obtained them?
> 
> 
> The only figures I could find (oddly covering the exact same time frame) Were not only _much_ lower but included every type of heating _other_ than A conventional furnace or water heater. ie Kero, electric space heaters, portable propane heaters, etc.




Got this from a e-mail from The (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research, U.S. Home heating Fire Patterns, June 2001).
""""""indoor wood burning was responsible for 1,541,800 fires; $1.024 billion dollars in property loss; and 3,275 deaths""""""

That I would guess is ONLY indoor wood burning.

RBW...... here I havent looked on the site yet but here you go
www.nfpa.org


----------



## Rspike (Oct 10, 2006)

bwalker said:


> I burn between 8-12 cords of wood per year. My house was is new construction and is about 2200sq feet with lots of windows and a walk out basement.
> I am also in the UP Of Mi where we have real winter, not like Ohio, or Illinois.
> Somebody living in lower MI, Ohio, Illinois or Indiana is going to use the same amount of wood as I do.
> I paid $95 per cord this year, but have paid %45 per cprd three years ago. There has been a shortage of pulp around here for the last few years so prices are higher than normal.
> 10 cords X $95 = $950. Not too bad considering I was using about $4-600 a month in propane prior to owning my boiler.


THATS ODD , Something dont add up, MS-310 lives in SAME State of Michigan as you with no insulation what so ever in his house and he only burns 3 cords of wood a year! Hum ...........


MS-310 said:


> Smoke My @ss
> 
> They dont smoke that much only when they start up. Some people just dont under stand the idea. You are going to us about 4 to 6 cords of wood, it my be less or more but avg. is 4 to 6 cords. Mine burns about 3 cords of wood a year, my house is old but only 1800 sqft. (and thats all im heating). any more ??????
> Jack


----------



## Rspike (Oct 10, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> Got this from a e-mail from The (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research, U.S. Home heating Fire Patterns, June 2001).
> """"""indoor wood burning was responsible for 1,541,800 fires; $1.024 billion dollars in property loss; and 3,275 deaths""""""
> 
> That I would guess is ONLY indoor wood burning.
> ...


 I see your worried about a fire in your home , thats good you beat the odds. It must be ruff to ride your bicycle to work becasue the odds of a car crash and death is way higher than a house burning down because of a wood stove. I know you wouldnt put YOUR family in a car/truck with the odd of death of a car crash. 

People keep asking for the proof of numbers on OWBs than say its false. But with the odds you are showing of indoor fires ....... we need to see a break down of the numbers. fireplace , pot belly stove , 55 gallon drum stove , 1932 stove , improper installs , non UL listed stoves , EPA stoves . fire by coal bucket , fire by bad install or improper install , camp stove . The OVER ALL #'s are a joke , you need a break down or it dont mean a whole lot to us.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 10, 2006)

> THATS ODD , Something dont add up, MS-310 lives in SAME State of Michigan as you with no insulation what so ever in his house and he only burns 3 cords of wood a year! Hum ...........


 There is a huge differance between southern MI and the UP where I live.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 10, 2006)

RS, I actually just looked at my records for the last three years and I used between 7 and 10 cords. Some of this was green soft wood early in the season though. I would think that if I used only seasoned oak and maple and kept my house at 70 I could get my consumption down to 5-7. Why bother, though? Wood is cheep.
Maybe I could burn only 3 cords with a indoor stove, but then I would have to deal with the stink, bugs, and mess in my house. Not to mention the higher insurance, increased risk of fire and the fact I would have to split and haul wood into my house. Its easier haveing a log truck plop a load infront of my boiler, cut it, then through it in unplit/seasoned.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 10, 2006)

*What a Country! Do as You Damn Please*



bwalker said:


> RS, .. I used between 7 and 10 cords. Some of this was green soft wood early in the season though. I would think that if I used only seasoned oak and maple and kept my house at 70 I could get my consumption down to 5-7. Why bother, though? Wood is cheep.
> Maybe I could burn only 3 cords with a indoor stove, but then I would have to deal with the stink, bugs, and mess in my house. Not to mention the higher insurance, increased risk of fire and the fact I would have to split and haul wood into my house.


Never thot of it that way: NO bugs, NO stink, NO mess. Otherwise SWMBO (shewhomustbe obeyed) would yell at me :biggrinbounce2: .
Hauling 3-4 times the wood I use would cripple me, since I go from stump to stove in our woodlot. It takes some thinking and planning to get the wood around: indoor woodshed for a 1/3 cord or so for the snow that we don't have here :hmm3grin2orange: , methods to keep the house clean, and bring the wood in for each day.
And Ben, if it's so arctic in the UP why would anyone want to load a stove outdoors ?  What kind on long underwear do you have to wear ? We had those winter outfits during training in Ft Drum....can't even pee without a serious plan. Then it freezes 1/2 way down:hmm3grin2orange: 
JMHO. Then what do you do when the power goes out ? When we have our NO snow storms, and the lines go down, those buggy, stinky, messy indoor stoves plug away. We can even cavort (don't know what that means, it sounds good) nude :yoyo: . We cook on 'em. Can you cook on that OWB ?
Mr. Righteous dismissed here.umpkin2: 
BUT: get the bureaucrats off us...seriously. Burn the way you want.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Oct 10, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> Got this from a e-mail from The (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research, U.S. Home heating Fire Patterns, June 2001).
> """"""indoor wood burning was responsible for 1,541,800 fires; $1.024 billion dollars in property loss; and 3,275 deaths""""""
> 
> That I would guess is ONLY indoor wood burning.
> ...






Well, I looked on the site you provided and could not come up with numbers anywhere near what you claimed.


Who sent you the email? CB, as stated in the other thread?


If you would have done the slightest amount of research on your own you would have found that there are on average 53,000 fires per year in homes in which heating devices were the cause,(this included apartments and trailers) over the span that you have mentioned.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Causes

These averages were from ALL typs of heating equipment, not just wood burning sources. (which includes open fireplaces)


----------



## bwalker (Oct 10, 2006)

Logbutcher, Loading my boiler once a day is not a issue for me. I usually have to snowblow most mornings anyway.
I cut and hauled all my own wood for the first year i owned the boiler, till I figured that it cost me more for "free" wood than it would to have it delivered to my boiler.
If the power goes out I do the same thing I did when I used propane. Fire up the Honda generator.


----------



## hockeypuck (Oct 10, 2006)

Rspike said:


> I was reading a lot of posts and threads at the Mother Earth Forum the last few days ........... reading from all the outdoor wood boiler *owners* that most of them are burning 9-12 cords of wood a year in there OWB! Wow , thats a lot of wood. Some OWB users even burning 16-20 cords of wood a year.
> 
> As most mention thats not only there heating there house there also heating there hot water so its a big savings. "big savings"? My NG hot water heater cost me $30. a month and thats with the $11. user charge to have it and all the b.s. taxes and fees at about $7.-$9. put the NG its self at $10. Still to the fact it still $30. cost.($360. a year) but the use of 9-12 cords of wood cant cover the cost of hot water.
> A lot of wood users wood is free but at buying wood at $150.oo a cord is still only 2.2 cords of wood. so that would be for me at 3.75 cords home heating (indoor EPA wood stove) + 2.2 cords water heating = 6 total cords . Where is the other 3-6 cords of wood the (9-12 cords of year users) and the 10-14 cords extra (of wood users of 16-20 cords) wood going ?
> ...




Rspike,

You have been throwing around alot of figures and you are dead wrong on the 9 cords for hot water. That is assine. As far as Elliot Spitzers hack job on OWB last year, that was nothing more than easy pickings for an election year. What better way to get the green party fired up for you than picking on a few outdoor wood boiler users. Those figures were largely based on old data from old designs. I am not saying that my Woodmaster is burning at 70 percent efficiency like my Vermont Castings Reliant, but I am willing to sacrifice a few cord of wood for domestic hot water, the lack of nose bleeds by my children from the wood stove, and the ability to burn junk wood outdoors. Keep stiring the pot -Rspike, but I am done reading this thread, because we will have to agree to disagree. Would I love the manufacturers to produce a 80 percent efficient outdoor wood boiler, of course. But until they produce one at a reasonable price, I will keep the smoke house. 

I believe someone once said, "Smoke'em if you got 'em boys!" 

Puck


----------



## Rspike (Oct 10, 2006)

hockeypuck said:


> Rspike,
> 
> You have been throwing around alot of figures and you are dead wrong on the 9 cords for hot water. That is assine. As far as Elliot Spitzers hack job on OWB last year, that was nothing more than easy pickings for an election year. What better way to get the green party fired up for you than picking on a few outdoor wood boiler users. Those figures were largely based on old data from old designs. I am not saying that my Woodmaster is burning at 70 percent efficiency like my Vermont Castings Reliant, but I am willing to sacrifice a few cord of wood for domestic hot water, the lack of nose bleeds by my children from the wood stove, and the ability to burn junk wood outdoors. Keep stiring the pot -Rspike, but I am done reading this thread, because we will have to agree to disagree. Would I love the manufacturers to produce a 80 percent efficient outdoor wood boiler, of course. But until they produce one at a reasonable price, I will keep the smoke house.
> 
> ...


If you are done with the thread ........ I have no problem with that. I have posted a lot of # and threads , tests. No proof at all from any OWB owners. Also i think you need to reread the whole thread and read what is posted and not what you want to hear ......... NOBODY said / posted anything about an OWB needing 9 cords of wood to heat hot water. The biggest come back i see is ........"I dont mind cutting/buying all the extra wood" or "let them smoke" Thats the difference between an owner of an OWB and a indoor modern stove user . 99% of the time the modern wood stove user did his homework and wanted the best bang for the buck and use less wood , less work and higher efficiency. Most OWB owners dont give a $hit , dont know the differnce or didn't do there research. 

To me "most" all the reasons for owning an OWB is bogus and B.S. and most of the time a cover up excuse for not knowing better.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 10, 2006)

Lets address this "issue"? Its been posted as an excuse more than once.


> have to deal with the stink, bugs, and mess in my house. Not to mention the higher insurance,



#1 "MY" insurance never went up. I have read that some insurance does go up per company , location ..ect..ect... about $100. a year. Thats a whopping $8.33 a month. So lets see ..... burn 1/3 less wood and not have to pay/work for the EXTRA 4-10 cords of wood vs $8.33 a month. 

#2 "stink, bugs, and mess in my house" I dont smell smoke inside my house with my wood stove .........my youngest daughter has asthma and has never had a problem. We have even had our house tested 3 time in the lat 4 years.
Bugs ? No bugs here ........ wood is fully seasoned , and wood dont come in until after the 3rd freeze and even then it sits on the back porch and we bring the wood inside with 2 rubbermaid containers and when we full the stove we take the rubbermaid container to the stove and fill . 
You would have to be a darwin to trail bugs and a wood mess through your house and get it all over. I agree that some people do make a big mess with indoor stoves and dont give a $hit and i also agree that some people heat there home with 9-12 cords of wood when it should only take 3-4 because they didnt know any better. 

I'm not selling anything here and i dont own stock in indoor wood stoves nor do i work for any wood stove companies. This thread is all about options. Do your research , get your home work done and put your $$ down on what you think is right. You can read about the ban of outdoor wood boilers and how its happening more and more. You can look over the lab test done on OWB to see the lack of efficiency for the $$ invested.
I'm still waiting for real world emissions test and efficiency done on OWB that say otherwise. 

You go out and buy a new car .......has the tested gas mileage listed.
You go out and buy a new dishwasher .... shows energy test.
You go out and buy a new hot water heater ......shows energy test. 
You go out and buy a new indoor wood stove ..... shows energy test. 

You go out and buy a new outdoor wood boiler ..... NO ENERGY TEST.
You would think for $7,000.00 ++ you would get an efficiency and energy test. Unless ..........They didnt want you to know.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 11, 2006)

RaisedByWolves said:


> Well, I looked on the site you provided and could not come up with numbers anywhere near what you claimed.
> 
> 
> Who sent you the email? CB, as stated in the other thread?
> ...



Im going to e-mail them (NFPA) to see if this is a true state ment just to prove my point or not.
What your link is from 1999 to 2002...... nothing to do what I stated.


----------



## JeffHK454 (Oct 11, 2006)

Not that it matters but about three posts in on this thread I emailed several manufacturers/dealers of OWBs for quotes on there efficiency ratings with no replies to date. 

JH


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

"This thread is all about options." ??

 

Dang, when you going to make wisecracks like that how about giving a fellow a warning? I just spit coffee all over my monitor.

It's your thread son but one thing it isn't about is open minded discussion.

It is about you trying to convince the world that the circumstances that caused you to purchase an EPA stove are the only ones worthy of consideration.

But then again, no open minded person reading it needs to be told that I guess.


Options?  I am still laughing about that one 

Thanks for cheering up my morning


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

I know, I know I said I was going to quit posting here but daggone it too much disinformation being passed on.

OK you did accomplish one thing, you got me do some looking for some info from your friends at the EPA (note: not MY friends but YOURS) BUT before you do you might as well get another rant from me.

This entire discussion started with smoke and has run the entire gamut from running down the OWB in every way shape and form to suggesting that anyone who would even consider one may need psychiatric examination, thanks. You stated earlier that you are not totally against OWBs, hooey! How would anyone come to any other conclusion reading this thread? You have danced a fancy dance here going from one point to another and when the heat gets warm your out has been that we the(OWB users) on this thread are simply liars. 

So punch the link dated February 1998 from YOUR friends at the EPA. Read what they had to say about boilers versus all other heating equipment INCLUDING the stoves THEY regulated and YOU own. Remember when you answer, (more like retaliate if like usual), that I DIDN'T do the test NOR did I write the article NOR am I putting a twist on it. Argue with their data, call them a liar and not me for presenting it. Remeber that these are the same people who you have been touting as the only ones with truthful answers.

Lets talk hug a tree, you know emissions, kill the earth and all that poop. Is my OWB about to kill the earth? What does it say?


“these furnaces’ (OWBs)
emissions were of the same order
as other stick wood burning appliances.”

Note: "other" This my friend includes EPA regulated stoves. What?? how could that be??

Now lets talk some more about harmful emissions, again quoted from the article. 

If atmospheric conditions
are conducive for accumulating
smog-like clouds of emissions, the wood
smoke could pose a health hazard.

Again they are talking about my OWB AND your EPA stove.

Now lets talk about why OWBs have created such an uproar with smoke and nuisance claims, again quoted from the summery

The relatively
low chimney height of the central heating
furnace/boiler, compared to the conventional
wood stove installations, creates a
greater potential for the localization of objectionable
emissions in and around residences.


Notice it does not say because the OWBs emit more, it is because of low stack heights. One of your early arguments was if people are banning them it must be for a reason and that reason must be that they are more polluting. You just got shot out of the water here. So lets ban them because it is easier than having stack height regulations would seem to be your argument?

Now finally you keep pressing the point that your choice in heat is an environmentally good one and a OWB owners is bad one. What do your friends have to say about that?

meaningful. However,
from Table 2, it is evident that all
wood-burning home heating combustion
equipment, including wood stoves, boil3
ers, or fireplaces, has much higher particulate
matter emissions than gas- or oilfired
home heating furnaces.

Notice it says ALL? Your friends at the EPA do not share your view that you are being a friend of the environment by using your EPA stove as compared to us OWB owners.

Finally lets talk efficiency, better yet lets talk cost of operation because you are basically talking the cost of feeding it right? You’re the one that keeps quoting numbers. Now if you want to talk save a tree that is different and you have not started down that road (yet).

The data shows efficiency numbers from 45 to 55, lower than your EPA stove BUT,
At what cost to me? Not you or someone that has to pay $200 a cord but ME and my situation. This is where you get real lost. I don’t buy firewood so my cost is minimal. If I don’t mind making and extra trip to the furnace what skin is it off of your rear? Same as being outside in the cold when I feed it. Call me stupid for likeing to cut wood, that point I cannot argue.

In conclusion 
1 Your claim to be a friend of the environment as comapred to us outlaw OWB owners has been shot down by YOUR side, go argue with them.

2.They say that to be the friend of the air you claim to be that you need to quit burning wood today as ANY cord wood stove, EPA or not pollutes more than gas or oil. My conclusion? If I am a envirnmental SOB for using a boiler you are one for using a woodstove. Why? Although the data says a OWB has slightly more emissions the summery states that the emissions are of no more consequence than the ones emitted by cord wood stoves including the EPA regulated ones like yours.

3. Smoke issues with OWBs are due to stack heights, not design of the firebox.



Thanks for making me look, I feel better


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

Oops forgot the stupid link, here it is

http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/EPA-woodburn.pdf


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

Thats a lot of nice "yap" any #'s to support your information ? Yet? Again , here we go with the "I like to cut wood and dont mind burning 10 cords" and the "It doesn't bother me to go out side to load the stove" Just like any claims from OWB , A lot of dancing around the subject but not real information. 

You mentioned "stack height" of a OWB ....... YES , that will help with smoke ,very little but will help. It will not help one bit with burning less wood. 

If any owner of a OWB feels he dont have a problem burning 8-14 cords of wood and doing all the work to get this wood and also dont have a problem with neighbors or issues him self about smoke ........ then any information here is probably not going to do him any good. The only information to these owners is doing any good is "the ban of OWB has started" and listed in this thread are the reasons why. 

Butch(OH) If you dont mind cutting extra wood for your OWB and going out side all the time in the winter to load it and smokes not a problem you are worried about ........then do it.

Butch(OH) You talk about chimney stack height and you showed pictures in the thread of your taller *SMOKE STAINED* stack. THANKS! Thats the pictures that needed to be seen. 

Get back to us when you have some lab test Butch(OH). Showing your smoke stained pipe and telling us it dont smoke kinda looks like *B.S.* to me.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 11, 2006)

Got some EPA test on a "CENTRAL BOILER" but it is in an PDF file trying to do some work to get it on the site... RSPIKE is right... OWB do burn more wood then Brand new type of in door burner (cat type), but not as much as he says it does. Its not how much grams per hour it's how many grams per KG of fuel as said by this report, alot of indoor stoves are not as efficent of retaning the heat in and also running a lot higher pipe temp so the smoke is burnt in the stack and fire box, out door wood stoves keep a lower temp in the stack witch inturns they retane more of the BTU's out of the wood. I hope this makes sense to you all. They are not as clean burning as a cat. type stove but still retane as much BTU's of the fuel then letting it go up thought the pipe. RSpike do you know what the temp your pipe is comming out of your stove????? 

RSPIKE dont get all pissy with me on this im just trying to teach people and learn, please.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 11, 2006)

United States National Risk Management
Environmental Protection Research Laboratory
Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268
Project Summary
Research and Development EPA/600/SR-98/017 February 1998
Modern outdoor residential woodburning
hot water furnaces are freestanding
units situated outside the envelope
of the structure to be heated.
They typically consist of a firebox and
water reservoir, assembled in a horizontal
configuration. Hot combustion
gases flow from the firebox at one end,
through channels or tubes in the water
reservoir, to the stack. The gases may
pass through the water reservoir once
to the stack at the end opposite the
firebox (one pass) or an additional set
of pipes may bring the gases back to
the stack located above but isolated
from the combustion chamber (double
pass). The heated water is pumped
through radiators in the dwelling or
through a heat exchanger in the heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) duct in response to the home
thermostat. A separate pipe coil in the
water reservoir may be used to provide
domestic hot water, year-round if desired.
The furnace draft is controlled
by a thermostat monitoring the temperature
of the water in the reservoir.
Central heating furnaces of all types
are exempt from the EPA wood heater
(wood stove) standard. In this project,
emissions were measured from a
single-pass and a double-pass furnace
at average heat outputs of 15,000 and
30,000 Btu/hr (4.4 and 8.8 kW) while
burning typical oak cordwood fuel. One
furnace was also tested once at each
heat output while fitted with a prototype
catalytic unit installed in the combustion
chamber. Emissions measured
included: EPA Method 5G particulate,
semivolatile and condensible organics,
20 target polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds, and carbon
monoxide (CO). Emission results are
Emissions from Outdoor Wood-
Burning Residential Hot Water
Furnaces
Joseph C. Valenti and Russell K. Clayton
presented in terms of rate per hour,
quantity per unit weight of wood
burned, and quantity per unit of heat
delivered. Delivered efficiencies are also
presented. Compared to a wide range
of residential heating options, these furnaces’
emissions were of the same order
as other stick wood burning appliances.
This Project Summary was developed
by the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory’s Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
In the early 1980s, the State of Oregon
began developing methods for characterizing
source emissions from residential
wood combustion units. The developed
methods have since blossomed into test
methods used to audit and certify woodburning
heaters. From these beginnings,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has established emission performance
standards for residential wood heaters.
The federal regulations established by
the EPA in 1988 limit emissions from residential
wood heaters, such as wood
stoves, pellet stoves, and factory built fireplace
inserts. These regulations, however,
do not include all wood-fired heating appliances.
For example, central heating furnace/
boilers are not covered under the
current regulations.
In general, emissions from the combustion
of wood in stoves and furnaces contain
significant levels of CO and fine particulate
matter (PM) consisting, in part, of


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> Got some EPA test on a "CENTRAL BOILER" but it is in an PDF file trying to do some work to get it on the site... RSPIKE is right... OWB do burn more wood then Brand new type of in door burner (cat type), but not as much as he says it does. Its not how much grams per hour it's how many grams per KG of fuel as said by this report, alot of indoor stoves are not as efficent of retaning the heat in and also running a lot higher pipe temp so the smoke is burnt in the stack and fire box, out door wood stoves keep a lower temp in the stack witch inturns they retane more of the BTU's out of the wood. I hope this makes sense to you all. They are not as clean burning as a cat. type stove but still retane as much BTU's of the fuel then letting it go up thought the pipe. RSpike do you know what the temp your pipe is comming out of your stove?????
> 
> RSPIKE dont get all pissy with me on this im just trying to teach people and learn, please.


He(( , I'm all for coming up with information ......if you have something to figure I'll post the #'s i know or can find out. My pipe temp i would say is around 800° . This would be the internal temp of the pipe about 10"-12" from the top of the stove. The out side pipe temp would be different ( lower ) the out side pipe temp {on the pipe} would be around 500° 

I'm not in agreeance with your statement above about indoor stove temps and pipe temps but if you are coming up with something I'll let you run with it.

As a note , an older non EPA indoor stove box temps are around 500° with the out side of the box showing around 300° 
A newer EPA secondary burn stove runs different. Wile the inside of the fire box will run a little hotter per the log burn as normal and you get around 50% efficiency off the burning log you get smoke , the secondary burn chamber burns this smoke coming off the log/fire and burns the smoke at around 1100° at top of the fire box so in turn it raises the inside temps and this is how the newer stoves get the higher efficiency as it burn the undurn smoke before it goes up and out the pipe stack. 

Secondary Cat combustive stoves work about the same except they run off a bypass and when the inside temps get up to 400°-500° you engage the cat vs the by pass and the smoke goes through the secondary cat combuster and burn the smoke at a higher temp.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 11, 2006)

2
mutagenic PAHs. If atmospheric conditions
are conducive for accumulating
smog-like clouds of emissions, the wood
smoke could pose a health hazard. With
the potential for such a condition under
consideration, the EPA established maximum
acceptable emissions levels for the
certification of most residential wood-fired
heaters.
Typically, the modern outdoor residential
wood-burning hot water furnace is a
freestanding unit situated outside the envelope
of the structure to be heated. The
unit consists of a closed combustion chamber
surrounded by a water tank and vented
through a stack. A wood burning fire is
contained and controlled in the combustion
chamber or firebox of the furnace.
During the combustion process, heat is
transferred through the walls of the chamber
into the water. The hot water from the
furnace tank can then be circulated through
radiators or air-handling heat exchangers
to transfer heat into the residence. Some
central heating furnaces are equipped with
additional plumbing to provide domestic
hot water.
Most commercial central heating furnaces
are supplied with an 8- to 10-ft (2.4
to 3.0 m) tall stack. Typical indoor wood
burning stoves have chimneys which extend
through the roof of a home to heights
of 20 to 30 ft (6.1 to 9.1 m). The relatively
low chimney height of the central heating
furnace/boiler, compared to the conventional
wood stove installations, creates a
greater potential for the localization of objectionable
emissions in and around residences.
Additionally, concerns have been
raised about the manner in which the combustion
process is controlled and how the
control affects the emissions.
The State of Wisconsin has asked the
Control Technology Center of EPA’s Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division
(APPCD) for assistance in determining
whether the need exists to regulate these
furnaces. Therefore, the EPA has undertaken
the task of evaluating the emissions
from the central heating furnaces and the
manner in which the combustion is controlled.
The objective is to develop baseline
emission factors for comparison with other
residential heating systems.
In the full report, Section 2 describes
the experimental approach and sampling
and analytical methods employed. Steps
to ensure project quality are described in
Section 3. Data, results, and discussion
are presented in Section 4. The appendices
contain the detailed data.
Project Description
Two types of furnaces were selected as
representative of the industry. The type of
furnace is defined by the configuration of
the unit. The flue gases exit the combustion
chamber by way of a flue that passes
through the water tank. A single-pass furnace
allows the flue gases to pass once
through the flue in the water tank before
exiting through the chimney. As the hot
flue gases pass through the flue, heat is
transferred to the water in the tank. In a
double-pass furnace, flue gases pass
through the water tank twice before exiting
through the chimney. The second pass
of the stack provides more surface area
and more contact time between the hot
flue gases and the water in the tank. Representative
furnaces of both types were
provided to EPA/APPCD for testing.
The outdoor residential wood-burning
hot water furnaces were tested following
EPA Reference Method 28 (M28–40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A), the test method
used to certify and audit wood-fired heaters
(stick and pellet burning woodstoves).
The method specifies fuel preparation, furnace
operation, and the reporting of the
results. Method 28 requires Method 5G or
5H (CFR Part 60, Appendix A) to determine
the concentrations of oxygen (O2),
carbon dioxide (CO2), CO, and PM in the
emissions.
For these tests, some of the fuel preparation
procedures under Method 28 were
modified in favor of preparing the fuel and
operating the furnace as recommended
by the manufacturer. Cordwood was used
instead of the dimensioned lumber specified
for wood heater certification. Method
28A was used to calculate the stack gas
dry molecular weight, as required for flow
measurements. Method 5G was the primary
sampling method used for the test.
The sampling method, Method 5G, was
modified by adding an XAD-2 absorbent
trap to collect organics; this modified sampling
method will hereafter be referred to
as Modified Method 5G (MM5G). The collected
MM5G samples were analyzed for
total PM, total semivolatile organics [sometimes
referred to as total chromatographable
organics (TCOs)], condensible organics as
measured by gravimetric analysis (GRAV),
and PAHs. The efficiencies of the units
were measured as a secondary objective
for reporting emissions relative to the input
heating value of the wood and to their heat
output from the furnace.
Each furnace was tested at two heat
output levels, 15,000 and 30,000 Btu/hr
(4.4 and 8.8 kW). Each test was run in
duplicate for a total of four runs per furnace.
In addition, two high heat output
scoping runs were performed on Furnace
A. Furnace A was also tested once at
each heat output while fitted with a prototype
catalytic device in the combustion
chamber, giving a total of 12 runs.
Results
Two basic furnace designs (single- and
double-pass boiler heat exchangers) were
chosen for these tests to see if the design
impacted emissions. Table 1 presents the
particulate and PAH emission factor data
and efficiency aggregated by furnace and
operating mode. Furnace B showed much
less variability in operation and emissions
data compared to Furnace A. Whether
this is due to (1) furnace design, (2) the
way the fuel was loaded, and/or (3) the
differences in the draft on/off cycles cannot
be determined without further tests;
more than likely, all three variables exerted
significant influence.
Table 2 lists the emission results for
various residential combustion devices.
The results from this investigation (see
bottom row in Table 2) were included as
an average from all the tests. Based on
this very limited test, it appears that the
total particulate emission factor is comparable
to that for conventional wood stoves.
Note that all particulate values have been
converted to the EPA Method 5H equivalent.
The PAH emission factor appears to
be generally the same as that for EPA
certified wood stoves. The data presented
in Table 2 were originally generated by
different researchers using a variety of
sampling and analytical methodologies. A
number of assumptions had to be made
to “normalize” the data for comparison.
Consequently, only order of magnitude differences
should be considered significant.
Readers are encouraged to review the
reference cited in the footnote for a more
thorough understanding of the data.
Conclusions
There were several data quality problems
with tests of Furnace A, all of which,
though significant, are thought to be small
enough to not bias the results for Furnace
A sufficiently to cause an order of magnitude
error. Tests of Furnace B had no
reported data quality problems. All tests
of Furnace B particulate matter emissions
were in the range of 16.5 to 17.6 g/hr
(high heat removal rate - tests B-1 and B-
2) and 14.3 to 15.5 g/hr (low heat removal
rate - tests B-3 and B-4). Particulate matter
emissions from Furnace A appear consistently
higher; but, within the limits of
these tests, experimental error, and considering
the testing problems previously
discussed that may have compromised
the data quality for Furnace A, a direct
comparison of Furnace A and Furnace B
emissions is without adequate foundation
and, therefore, is not meaningful. However,
from Table 2, it is evident that all
wood-burning home heating combustion
equipment, including wood stoves, boil-


This is an EPA REPORT....... they have the numbers on a PDF file I cant get to you guys. 10.8 grams of stuff to 1 KG of fuel for an OWB
10.8 grams of stuff to 1 KG for an Catalytic stove 5 types(they didnt say witch type of stoves.

This is all on an Central boiler.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 11, 2006)

Rspike said:


> He(( , I'm all for coming up with information ......if you have something to figure I'll post the #'s i know or can find out. My pipe temp i would say is around 800° . This would be the internal temp of the pipe about 10"-12" from the top of the stove. The out side pipe temp would be different ( lower ) the out side pipe temp {on the pipe} would be around 500°
> 
> I'm not in agreeance with your statement above about indoor stove temps and pipe temps but if you are coming up with something I'll let you run with it.
> 
> ...




A newer EPA secondary burn stove is more Eff. by a few ways.
They dont have to move the heat to the house by under ground pipe.
They have refinded them better then OWB..... I guess the one thing that I got going on this is cuz I been going though this at my town and trying to prove my point, they are not that bad like some of these sites say and I guess im the only one trying to get some real facts on the truth.

You got to give up some thing to get some thing. More Eff. stove is in side-less Eff.(not by much) is outside, I like my fire out side so yea I mite burn a face cord or 2 more but I like it outside, they cost more(owb) Indoor stoves are cheap, harder to clean.... I could go on for ever but you see my point, we have ran on about it alot, been fun and thursday is a meeting and hopfully the city understands 60 sheets of paper I got on OWB.

Thanks for the INFO, Im going to check my pipe temp rspike.


----------



## laynes69 (Oct 11, 2006)

The idea of keeping a house within 1+/- degree of temperature is great. I have those days where I sweat my a$$ off because I have problems keeping the heat constant with my indoor wood furnace. They heat your hot water, which can be done with my indoor wood furnace, but can potentialy create a bomb. Everything has its +'s and -'s it all what you need. Ever seen the indoor wood boilers, which are gasification boilers, they use a storage tank so if you burn the fire, the storage tank holds the heat for later. TARM is one of them. You convert a standard outdoor wood boiler to a gasification boiler and you can could probably get it to pass epa. I do believe the future will have outdoor wood gasification boilers, if not already now. Technology will improve, things will get better.


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Thats a lot of nice "yap" any #'s to support your information ? Yet? Again , here we go with the "I like to cut wood and dont mind burning 10 cords" and the "It doesn't bother me to go out side to load the stove" Just like any claims from OWB , A lot of dancing around the subject but not real information.
> 
> You mentioned "stack height" of a OWB ....... YES , that will help with smoke ,very little but will help. It will not help one bit with burning less wood.
> 
> ...



Ha ha Spike as always you have put words in my mouth that I didn't say to make your point. The "yap" doesn't come from me it came from the people that you have quoted so many times, the EPA, so why attack me for it? I was simply trying to find out how much worse I am polluting than you are and surprise surprise I found a friend in what I thought to be my enemy. And nope the small amount of smoke doesn't bother me a bit. It does however bother you and the EPA but in the same breath they say it is no more harmful than your stove exhaust so how about saying "US" when talking pollution instead of "them" LOL. Me? get a test lab? but why would I want to do that? I am paying for a big time lab now at the EPA. Even you have posted EPA data as Gospel so why is this data different? Smoke pics? Go back and find where I said it doesn't smoke at all? My clean stack pics are presented to balance the ones you posted, and were not intended to indicate clear stack at all times. You tried to put those words in my post but all can go back and look. At least I can sleep tight knowing mine are real life since I took them right out my back door and dint have to cruise the internet looking for photos to make a point.

Since your friends at the EPA have informed me that I am not the polluter you claim me to be I will be lots happier this winter as I bask in hot water with no limit and a house that is as warm as I crank the thermostat setting to. 
I am sorry that this POs you as I really owe you one, since it was you who provoked me into looking at the EPA site for test data.

Have a nice evening!


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

What is the link to the site / file you got this information.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 11, 2006)

> #1 "MY" insurance never went up. I have read that some insurance does go up per company , location ..ect..ect... about $100. a year. Thats a whopping $8.33 a month. So lets see ..... burn 1/3 less wood and not have to pay/work for the EXTRA 4-10 cords of wood vs $8.33 a month.
> 
> #2


I dont know about where you live but in MI it goes up quit a bit. My insurance company will not even insure a home or outbuilding with a homebuilt stove.


> "stink, bugs, and mess in my house" I dont smell smoke inside my house with my wood stove .........my youngest daughter has asthma and has never had a problem. We have even had our house tested 3 time in the lat 4 years.
> Bugs ? No bugs here ........ wood is fully seasoned , and wood dont come in until after the 3rd freeze and even then it sits on the back porch and we bring the wood inside with 2 rubbermaid containers and when we full the stove we take the rubbermaid container to the stove and fill .
> QUOTE]
> I think your full of crap. Everytime my buddy opens the door on his Vermount castings EPA stove it smells in the house. Ditto on the bugs, bark etc. he is a neat freek and has always sweeping up crap he tracks into his house. How about the ashes?
> ...


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

· Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) determined,
pursuant to litigation, that a unit produced by *Central Boiler (Model CL-7260) *
had an *“adjusted emission rate” of 93.76 g/hr for PM. This number was derived
by state review of laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer. * Central
Boiler claims in their submission of the tests that the actual rate was 3.6 g/hr.
However, after thorough review, the Vermont DEC Air Pollution Control Agency
concluded that Central Boiler incorrectly interpreted the data . *The state’s calculations of 93.76 g/hr are accurate.
*· US EPA and the New York Attorney General’s Office have obtained sales and
emissions data from manufacturers. Table 5-1 contains emissions data made
public by the New York Attorney General’s Office. OWB manufacturers have
claimed that these data are Confidential Business Information and therefore
NESCAUM has not been able to review the test reports or underlying test
procedures37 and therefore cannot confirm the test results nor determine the
amount of emissions that may not have been measured in the condensable portion
of the emissions. However, the data do show high emission rates and indicate that
manufacturers are aware of these high emission rates from their OWBs.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

There ya go Central boiler had test run made on there stove. Not the out come they were looking for thus is why the test are not posted by them from the lab test. 

* Central Boiler (Model CL-7260) 
had an “adjusted emission rate” of 93.76 g/hr for PM. This number was derived by state review of laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer. Central Boiler *


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

bwalker said:


> I dont know about where you live but in MI it goes up quit a bit. My insurance company will not even insure a home or outbuilding with a homebuilt stove.


HOME BUILT STOVE??? You must be think of another thread ... no body is talking about home built stoves being installed and insurance. Where did you come up with that??




bwalker said:


> "stink, bugs, and mess in my house" I dont smell smoke inside my house with my wood stove .........my youngest daughter has asthma and has never had a problem. We have even had our house tested 3 time in the lat 4 years.
> Bugs ? No bugs here ........ wood is fully seasoned , and wood dont come in until after the 3rd freeze and even then it sits on the back porch and we bring the wood inside with 2 rubbermaid containers and when we full the stove we take the rubbermaid container to the stove and fill .
> 
> I think your full of crap. Everytime my buddy opens the door on his Vermount castings EPA stove it smells in the house. Ditto on the bugs, bark etc. he is a neat freek and has always sweeping up crap he tracks into his house. How about the ashes?



I'm full of crap? When you bring wood into the house in a rubber maid container with a lid on it and it goes from the back room to right in front of the wood stove , open the lid and put two logs into the stove and shut the lid.......... how big of pig do you have to be to make a mess? I'm sorry your friend has problems with such a simple task . Does he spill his dinner plate when he goes from the kitchen to the table? Ha ! It not that hard BW. Good lord man ....... not every body is a cave man.

You asked about ashes ............ I have an ash bucket out side my back door. I have an ash pan clean out under my stove and scrap the ashes into the ash pan and let them sit to settle , minutes later i pull out the ash pan and take it out side. *NO MESS* . Not that hard to do.


----------



## CaseyForrest (Oct 11, 2006)

Hey Spike....just for conversation sake....what kind of vehicle do you drive?


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

CaseyForrest said:


> Hey Spike....just for conversation sake....what kind of vehicle do you drive?


Whats that got to do with the thread topic ? Are we going to derail the thread again. Thats seems to be the norm for anybody taking a side of OWB , we have to talk about something else that has nothing to do with the ban of OWB. Bring some true insite and information to the conversation , How about safe sex ? do i smoke a cigar , how much do i drink ..........Nothing to do with OWB . 

CaseyForrest ...... Start a new thread.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

.


----------



## CaseyForrest (Oct 11, 2006)

OK....my point is I'm sure you don't drive the most environmentally responsible vehicle. You drive what enables you to do what you do.

If you are going to get on your soapbox about OWB emissions, then you should get yourself one of those Hybrids, and really make an impact.

My intent wasn't to derail the thread, but to point out that we all do and choose whats convenient for our lifestyles. I see you railing on anyone who chooses to use an OWB. I have yet to see anyone berate you for your choice of wood burners.


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

Rspike said:


> What is the link to the site / file you got this information.


Here it is again, I forgot to post it in the long winded rant but was in a post afterwards, Old age setting in CRS


http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/EPA-woodburn.pdf


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

CaseyForrest said:


> OK....my point is I'm sure you don't drive the most environmentally responsible vehicle. You drive what enables you to do what you do.
> 
> If you are going to get on your soapbox about OWB emissions, then you should get yourself one of those Hybrids, and really make an impact.
> 
> My intent wasn't to derail the thread, but to point out that we all do and choose whats convenient for our lifestyles. I see you railing on anyone who chooses to use an OWB. I have yet to see anyone berate you for your choice of wood burners.


Nope , No Hybrids here . 1991 Ford Bronco 351C 4x4 Silver Anniversary Special . The truck is fully with in goverment specs , exhaust and all. A whole 15 MPG town, 16-17 highway . Times have change but what i drive has not. I only drive under 4k miles a year. 

My truck will pass emissions test ..........an OWB dont.
There are no states , towns , governments baning my truck. 

So do i buy a new truck for $40,000 and still get 15 MPG ? 
How about i buy a new Hybrid and pull the big trailers i need to pull . off road 4x4 Hybrids ? Just wont work brother.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

Butch(OH) said:


> Here it is again, I forgot to post it in the long winded rant but was in a post afterwards, Old age setting in CRS
> 
> 
> http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/EPA-woodburn.pdf



Yep , Thanks for the link .........Just as i thought. Buttered #'s This maybe... on an OWB on "Continuous firing 182 M5H Particulate" but how about *"Intermittent firing 1862M5H Particulate "*? WOW how the #'s change in real life running.

Ever see an OWB burn full time with out shutting off/down ? There is a big difference between half the information and ALL the information. 

I have to give you credit tho ....... it was worth a try.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/Roospike/SAVE0006.jpg">


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

*2004 Laboratorie test*

Intertek 2004 Laboratories & Omni 2004 Laboratories test OWB - 10 models

<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/Roospike/LabTest2004.jpg">


----------



## bwalker (Oct 11, 2006)

> My truck will pass emissions test ..........an OWB dont.
> There are no states , towns , governments baning my truck


 A OWB doesnt have to pass any standards because they havent made any for them yet.
Your 91 bronco belches emmissions at a pretty good clip compared to todays trucks. Maybe we should ban 91 broncos?


----------



## bwalker (Oct 11, 2006)

BTW how much particulates are put into the atmosphere by plowing fields and driving down dirt roads?


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

bwalker said:


> A OWB doesnt have to pass any standards because they havent made any for them yet.
> Your 91 bronco belches emmissions at a pretty good clip compared to todays trucks. Maybe we should ban 91 broncos?


Yep , Again with grasping for straws and off topic.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 11, 2006)

> Yep , Again with grasping for straws and off topic.


Its no differant than what your are proposing. 
I think next week you should go after the auto repair shops, loggers and farmers who use waste oil burners.:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 11, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Yep , Thanks for the link .........Just as i thought. Buttered #'s This maybe... on an OWB on "Continuous firing 182 M5H Particulate" but how about *"Intermittent firing 1862M5H Particulate "*? WOW how the #'s change in real life running.
> 
> Ever see an OWB burn full time with out shutting off/down ? There is a big difference between half the information and ALL the information.
> 
> I have to give you credit tho ....... it was worth a try.



Buttered info, LOL Come on now Spike you can do better than that.

Lets see now, what did you tell a fellow a few days ago who questioned some EPA data you posted?

"SOooooooooooo ..... Your saying that everybody should take "your" word for it over state testing and EPA testing"

Believe it or not I agreed with you then, and still do now, LOL

Let's be serious for a minute here.
do you think it would be fair that system "A"which is capable of say 150,000 BTU would be tested side by side with system "B" at say 100,000 BTU for TOTAL emissions? Even at equal amounts of cancergas output per BTU delivered the higher BTU unit would show higher cancergas per hour. SO if a person wanted to skew results all he would have to do is use a higher BTU capacity for the unit he wanted to look bad. Now to their credit our friends at the EPA did not do that dirty little trick and throttled the OWBs back to a output of 15,000 BTUs. I am not trying to psycho analyze the test but it would seem that since on off cycles make more pollutants per your sources that a test at 15,000 BTU would cause more pollution that one at say 30,000 thus I fail to see the buttering that would bias this test towards OWBs I see it the other way. Believe it or not I would like to see real info that is unbiased either way. I think more useful data would be pollutants per thousand BTUs delivered instead of totals?

50 outside and I am warm and comfy and haven't put wood in since yesterday and just cam out of a bath with free hot water, well almost free have to run them pumps. Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

Hey , I got the information right off the pdf file *you* posted.


Butch(OH) said:


> Buttered info, LOL Come on now Spike you can do better than that.
> 
> Lets see now, what did you tell a fellow a few days ago who questioned some EPA data you posted?
> 
> ...


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

bwalker said:


> Its no differant than what your are proposing.
> I think next week you should go after the auto repair shops, loggers and farmers who use waste oil burners.:hmm3grin2orange:


I'm posting about tests and bans of OWB as its written , links and information. Your posting about a whole different topic. How is that the same? You grasping for straws and posting about indoor stove ashes , bugs and mess and your friend that cant stay clean. Not sure what that has to do with cites, states and town getting rid of OWB. I dont think my truck that passes emissions has to do with OWB and the test #'s they dont want anybody to know about.

Now your on to dirt roads and farmers ?

Get on topic and post some "good" information , if you want to take about another topic then start another thread. 

My wood stove and truck has emissions standard and pass them both..... lets talk about the topic OWB and what there doing.


----------



## bwalker (Oct 11, 2006)

MY OWB passes all applicable standards as well.  
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 11, 2006)

bwalker said:


> MY OWB passes all applicable standards as well.
> Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


LMAO , 2 points ....... that was funny.


----------



## daddieslilgirl (Oct 12, 2006)

*ban on wood fired boilers*

ok ive kept my mouth shut until page 7! ours keeps my parents 2600 sq ft home warm, up and down, trust me its hot, plus now with my new baby neice it also feeds my brothers house, they ran and wrapped the pipes across the driveway the other day! i opted out so they could get it and i can still cut wood my SIL cant! i will get my outdoor furnace by spring, and id like to see someone come and tell me i cant! im stubborn and mean and this is MY right! what are they gonna do tear it apart? NOT! this is my house my property and thats that! and for everyone for the epa against creosote build up maybe ya ougtta shut your traps, (seems to be thats clogging your brains) and there wouldnt be any problem!! yes im prepared to be blasted! but when you pay my propane, just for my stove, that jumped from 51 to 86.00 that last 8 months, for a 100lb tank, ( i do have the differnt propane), ill show you the math if you want it,then you can tell me how i should cook and heat my home! until then if i cant afford fuel/kero why dont you pay it for me??? there will come a time when the electric goes out and youll wish to heck you had a woodstove of any kind!! we have one for just that reason! ill be warm and youll be freezing your butt off! yes we preserve water so dont go there! people like you who has never gone without or live where i do (yes my choice) during any kind of storm wouldnt understand! i feel like im talking to an idiot! we all need to be warm! show me the benifits of your heating system..thats helped put a hole in the ozone layer???? bring it on on ill give as good as i get! i dont have the cash that you might, heck i cant even get my oil barrel filled and your complaining about woodsmoke? im glad your family will be warm by electric heat and propane but what about mine when this is all ive got?????????????? a woodstove inside? that you want to ban? then may i suggest regrettfully start wiping your hiney on ferns because TP is a wood product!


----------



## CaseyForrest (Oct 12, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Nope , No Hybrids here . 1991 Ford Bronco 351C 4x4 Silver Anniversary Special . The truck is fully with in goverment specs , exhaust and all. A whole 15 MPG town, 16-17 highway . Times have change but what i drive has not. I only drive under 4k miles a year.
> 
> My truck will pass emissions test ..........an OWB dont.
> There are no states , towns , governments baning my truck.
> ...



Thats my point.

And there are a few in government that want to ban vehicles such as yours.

BTW, Nice truck, Ive always like the full size broncos.


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 12, 2006)

RSPIKE,

Dam you listen The post that I made was from EPA form.... screaw it belive what you want.....
OWB rock


----------



## windthrown (Oct 14, 2006)

*Off topic?*



Rspike said:


> (screaming and howeling about OWBs snipped)..... lets talk about the topic OWB and what there doing.



Heeeeey Mister smarty welder pants... YOU are the one with all the posts comparing OWB emissions to.... DIESEL TRUCKS! Yes, right thar, in them thar posts, Rspike moans and complains that an OWB pumps more crap into the air than them thar DIESEL TRUCKS. Then there are graphics, and charts listing diesel truck emissions and comparing them to OWBs. 

So... what is this complaint of yours about going off-topic and talking about Bronco emissions????? Hypocrates said something about that once... 

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:


----------



## Rspike (Oct 14, 2006)

windthrown said:


> Heeeeey Mister smarty welder pants... YOU are the one with all the posts comparing OWB emissions to.... DIESEL TRUCKS! Yes, right thar, in them thar posts, Rspike moans and complains that an OWB pumps more crap into the air than them thar DIESEL TRUCKS. Then there are graphics, and charts listing diesel truck emissions and comparing them to OWBs.
> 
> So... what is this complaint of yours about going off-topic and talking about Bronco emissions????? Hypocrates said something about that once...
> 
> :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:


 I didnt bring up truck emissions , that was CaseyForrest so i answered his question because i didnt have any thing to hide . 

The charts listing diesel truck emissions , well ........ Your going to have to talk with the EPA about that . I just posted the chart , i didnt make it. Would you of been happier is they compared OWB to chicken farms ? Good Lord man. 

So its been a few days now from a last post and this is the best you could come up with to enlighten us on Outdoor wood boilers ? Thats sad. 

Looks to me you just wanted to start some $hit ...........AGAIN. 

Quit ca-b-i-t-c-h-en and bring some information to the table and read whats posted so we dont have to correct you and read it for ya. 

Now that "little windthrown" has posted his PMS tantrum maybe some one has some updated information.


*O' and BTW little windthrown* 


windthrown said:


> Heeeeey Mister smarty welder pants...



*Nice , Ya got me there......That was about two years old of ya. * This is an adult forum , post like an adult or go else ware.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 14, 2006)

Don't forget, this IS the world wide web. You just MAY be having a sensless argument with a nine year old on the other end using his daddy's computer.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 14, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> Don't forget, this IS the world wide web. You just MAY be having a sensless argument with a nine year old on the other end using his daddy's computer.




True that .


----------



## windthrown (Oct 15, 2006)

*OK, Adios then...*

Well Mister Welder dude, there is obviously no point in debating this issue with you, so what's the point. I will leave this thread and you can post all the disinformation crap that you want about whatever you want, and hey, who really cares anyway. Flap your yap 'til the cows come home. 

Time to move onto other issues and debates with saner people, like with 8 and 9 year olds out on the playground. Adios fellow outdoor wood boiler people. Live long and burn the wood outside.


----------



## SRT-Tech (Oct 15, 2006)

I wood :biggrinbounce2: love to put all of you into a big room, lock the doors, and see what happens....


----------



## JAL (Oct 15, 2006)

A real life "Chainsaw Massacre III"  


opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: :jester:


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 15, 2006)

*The End*

THE END !opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:


----------



## Canyon Angler (Oct 15, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Bring some true insite and information to the conversation , How about safe sex ? do i smoke a cigar



Well, your buddy Al Gore recently said (and I'm NOT making this up) that tobacco smoking causes global warning.

Yeah, Al. But nowhere near as much as your [email protected]


----------



## Rspike (Oct 15, 2006)

Does not matter what i think ..........If i changed my mind today and took back every thing i said and posted..............
There would still be a ban on outdoor wood boilers and all the posted test information would be the same. Its not me you have to change , its the outdoor wood boiler companies that are needing up dated of there items.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 16, 2006)

*The votes are in. UPDATE*

The ban gets pushed through. 
Neighbors welcome wood-boiler ban
Monday, October 16, 2006
By JEANETTE DeFORGE
[email protected] 
CHICOPEE - Neighbors forced to live in the midst of thick smoke nearly every day for a year breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Board of Health banned outdoor wood-burning boilers. 

The three-member board voted unanimously to ban the boilers Thursday and gave owners 30 days to stop using and remove them. 

The vote came one day after a state Housing Court judge ordered a Holyoke resident to stop using his outside wood-burning boiler in 30 days. The complaint was filed by city officials there. 

"I am very pleased," said Arelia G. Tumidajewicz, whose Pendleton Street home is across the street from an outdoor boiler. "There is always an odor of smoke. You can feel it. It gets inside your house." 

There are times when the smoke is light. Other times it is very heavy, but residents never know which it will be, she said. 

She and her husband, Joseph T. Tumidajewicz, have been living with the smoke from the boiler for a year. They limit their time outdoors and can never open their windows. 

At first no one was certain what to do about the problem because it was new. But when public officials started visiting neighbors of the outdoor boilers, they realized the extent of the problem. 

Frank Boron, Board of Health chairman, said he visited the Tumidajewicz home once, and saw smoke from more than a mile away as he approached. 

"I was there 10 minutes, and when I got home, my wife asked me if I was at a fire," he said. 

While some residents said they are saving money on fuel costs with the outdoor boilers, the needs of the majority who face the pollution from them have to be considered, said Dr. Christopher R. Keroack, a board member. 

"Wood smoke is dangerous. The smokestack is too short," he said. 

Previously the Board of Health had set a moratorium on all new such boilers, but allowed the four they know of to continue operation. Two weeks ago the Board of Aldermen voted to ask health commissioners to extinguish the existing ones. 

Paula A. Nowak said that when a neighbor installed one about 20 feet from her house they put off complaining, figuring it wouldn't run when the weather got warm. They were wrong. 

Still, they didn't complain until the sale of their Loveland Street house fell through when the buyer backed out because of the smoke. 

Eventually she and her husband, Edward J. Nowak, did sell, but at a lower price. Between that and the additional money in lawyer fees, the couple figures they lost between $20,000 and $30,000 over the issue. 

"I'm happy they did this, I just wish it didn't take so long," she said.


----------



## JAL (Oct 16, 2006)

Where is this at?


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 16, 2006)

While I applaud any improvements that help outdoor boiler's emissions, I feel it's wrong for these 4 households to be given 30 days to stop using their heating source and yank them out. That's just the wrong way to do it. They at least should not be made to pay for the replacement heating system. They did, afterall, buy a perfectly legal heating system at the time.


----------



## olyman (Oct 16, 2006)

personally--those four--and any more around the neighborhood that may want to get boilers--need to file a lawsuit against the board---theyll vote any thing down if they get away with that--


----------



## CaseyForrest (Oct 16, 2006)

"She and her husband, Joseph T. Tumidajewicz, have been living with the smoke from the boiler for a year. They limit their time outdoors and can never open their windows."

Its cold enough out for those with Boilers to have them cooking, and these people have their windows opened??? 

Report sounds biased.


----------



## Booshcat (Oct 16, 2006)

Chicopee is a city in Western Massachusetts.
I grew up south of Boston and never thought of Chicopee as some rural wilderness.
I bet these people are on pretty tightly packed parcels, where the neighbors are no more than a few hundred feet apart. I'll have to look in the W Ma media and see.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 16, 2006)

*End This, Pleeeeessse !*

THE END !  :sword: :sword: :bday:


----------



## Rspike (Oct 16, 2006)

Nobody asked you to be on this thread logbutcher


----------



## Rspike (Oct 16, 2006)

so..DONT READ IT !


----------



## bwalker (Oct 16, 2006)

> Chicopee is a city in Western Massachusetts.


 Somehow I am not supprised this is happening in the Peoples Republic of Mass.


----------



## Husky137 (Oct 16, 2006)

Booshcat said:


> Chicopee is a city in Western Massachusetts.
> I grew up south of Boston and never thought of Chicopee as some rural wilderness.
> I bet these people are on pretty tightly packed parcels, where the neighbors are no more than a few hundred feet apart. I'll have to look in the W Ma media and see.



Chicopee is very citified,part of the urban sprawl of Springfield. 1/4 acre lots are the norm. Completely inappropriate for OWB's.


----------



## JAL (Oct 16, 2006)

Up here in the "Republic of Vermont" the requirement is that the OWB be AT least 250 ft from the nearest neighbor's house otherwise the OWB dealer cannot legally sale you a boiler. The dealer is held legally responsible for this requirement. SO...........


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 17, 2006)

bwalker said:


> Somehow I am not supprised this is happening in the Peoples Republic of Mass.


  Now THAT'S funny.


----------



## DanMan1 (Oct 17, 2006)

Other late breaking CHICOPEE news....

The Ordinance Committee is recommending that inspection fees for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors increase effective Jan. 1. The inspections are required during the sale of homes, and are charged to the seller. 

The fee increases were requested by Fire Chief Stephen S. Burkott, who said that fees had not increased in many years and were needed to offset rising inspection costs including fuel used by department vehicles. 


Currently, the city charges $10 for an inspection of any dwelling. As proposed, the board will consider approving an inspection fee of $25 for a single-family house, $50 for a two-family house, $75 for a dwelling with six or fewer units, and $250 for a dwelling with more than 6 units.


----------



## Butch(OH) (Oct 17, 2006)

DanMan1 said:


> Other late breaking CHICOPEE news....
> 
> The Ordinance Committee is recommending that inspection fees for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors increase effective Jan. 1. The inspections are required during the sale of homes, and are charged to the seller.
> 
> ...



I could easily be mad about such crap DanMan but instead I feel sorry for the poor folks who live under the control of local socialist regimes. For those that think Government controls are the answer I feel sorry for them too. That is why bans of OWBs are bad and believe me, they wont stop with boilers it will be all wood heat before they are done. You cant be for the ban of OWBs and for freedom and or wood heat. Sorry but it dont work that way with socialists.


----------



## Booshcat (Oct 17, 2006)

Aerial views of the Chicopee neighborhoods where OWB's were operating before ban.
Click on aerial view in upper right of web page.

Pendleton....

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=%5b812%2d819%5d%20Pendleton%20Ave&city=Chicopee&state=MA&zipcode=01020&country=US&location=f6MypaOOA%2bc1qbQdONe%2bzt%2fyAnWlWq16GekL4CMK6N55sKm%2bVQh0mH7P7iKOjONgXy%2fSU8Yw8EQxDlGf66krJ1OVXm770vRksERIZvm5AJWXc%2beAlzsJhUEQnkX8s2rMJU5TOkkZZpP3an%2bxgt9Q8g%3d%3d&ambiguity=1
Loveland...
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=QpVpagCMp43FOpzA1MRwzw%3d%3d&longitude=FrSKv5HJ3C1Mgx7Bs5bVCQ%3d%3d&name=St%20Patrick%27s%20CCD&country=US&address=125%20Montgomery%20St&city=Chicopee&state=MA&zipcode=01020&phone=413%2d592%2d4344&spurl=0&&q=loveland%20street&qc=Schools%20%28K%2d12%29

It's pretty tight quarters..

I don't have a problem with these units, I agree that they should be more efficient, but that should be a market driven outcome, not a government mandate. If you live in an area that is a good fit, more power to you.

I live in Massachusetts...It's a great place, except for the commie, moonbat, liberal, red diaper doper babies regulating and taxing everything that does or does not move..

Tough place to be a ditto head, but I persevere


----------



## Husky137 (Oct 17, 2006)

It will be interesting to see how much actual legal authority these boards and other "elected" officials have in the face of a lawsuit.

Having an OWB implies being a good neighbor about and using it responsibly.

Wish I had my camera with me this morning as I headed through town with all the woodstoves belching heavy smoke.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 19, 2006)

*Hey Spikey*



Rspike said:


> Nobody asked you to be on this thread logbutcher



FONT="Comic Sans MS"][/FONT]Your long long long points are made. Some I agree with, some I don't. So ? Your mind is made up. Others have written their opinions. So what else ? If someone wants to say "end", so ? Don't like what you hear ? Getting any new input ? Move on. This is called FORUM".....Even you are "asked" to be here. And "nobody" asked anybody. Roll around and stamp if you want. Go back to work. It's a forum. 

Feel you're the THREAD FUHRER here ?  :angry2: [/FONT]


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 19, 2006)

logbutcher said:


> FONT="Comic Sans MS"][/FONT]Your long long long points are made. Some I agree with, some I don't. So ? Your mind is made up. Others have written their opinions. So what else ? If someone wants to say "end", so ? Don't like what you hear ? Getting any new input ? Move on. This is called FORUM".....Even you are "asked" to be here. And "nobody" asked anybody. Roll around and stamp if you want. Go back to work. It's a forum.
> 
> Feel you're the THREAD FUHRER here ?  :angry2: [/FONT]


      
I think thats funny.


----------



## Rspike (Oct 19, 2006)

Still waiting for that knowledge and information for the facts of OWB of the "pros" end of it. Lots of "cons" of lab test ..........

If you would like to see the thread "END" why do you have to keep coming back days later from the last post and bring it up again ? We already see you *dont* have any useful information to add to the topic. 
But i do see you on your back kicking and crying ........again.


:notrolls2: :notrolls2: :notrolls2: :notrolls2:


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 19, 2006)

Rspike said:


> Still waiting for that knowledge and information for the facts of OWB of the "pros" end of it. Lots of "cons" of lab test ..........
> 
> If you would like to see the thread "END" why do you have to keep coming back days later from the last post and bring it up again ? We already see you *dont* have any useful information to add to the topic.
> But i do see you on your back kicking and crying ........again.
> ...




Hay I placed 2 or 3 pages of EPA (I contacted the EPA and other OWB companys on this) REPORTS on this subject, I do think that that was freaking useful information, its not my falt you dont beleave them.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 19, 2006)

*It's Over Spikey*



Rspike said:


> Still waiting for that knowledge and information for the facts of OWB of the "pros" end of it. Lots of "cons" of lab test ..........
> 
> If you would like to see the thread "END" why do you have to keep coming back days later from the last post and bring it up again ? We already see you *dont* have any useful information to add to the topic.
> But i do see you on your back kicking and crying ........again.
> ...


----------



## Rspike (Oct 19, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> Hay I placed 2 or 3 pages of EPA (I contacted the EPA and other OWB companys on this) REPORTS on this subject, I do think that that was freaking useful information, its not my falt you dont beleave them.


 The statment was not directed at you MS-310 , We can agree to not agree and theres nothing wrong with that .
I applaud you for your input into the thread MS-310 and every one else that did there home work on the subject . 

If i had the power to change things would i BAN outdoor wood boilers ? *NO* 
The power need to be put towards higher efficiency and in turn you get better emissions. There would be nothing wrong with going from 28%-50% efficiency to 65%-75% efficiency ......... the OWB companies could sell more boilers and the owners would burn less wood and get longer burn time and of course the emissions would be better too .

I hope the OWB ban is a wake up call to the designers of the OWB companies to make a better product for there costumers and also the environment .


----------



## 046 (Oct 19, 2006)

just read most of this long thread... whew!

seems to me there's good OWB and bad OWB's. just like there's good & bad indoor wood stoves. 

what I have not seen much of in this thread is fundamental problems facing OWB's. that is when heating a tank of water, you don't want temps too high. so heat source (fire) is shut down (regulated). 

this results in a fire with reduced temperatures, resulting in an incomplete burn. the identical theory applies to inside wood burning stoves that controls burn by shutting down oxygen. a low temp fire that results in incomplete burn. some take care of this problem with a Cat, some take care of this issue with multi-cycle burn schemes. 

My JUCA takes care of incomplete burn by allowing fire to achieve full temps and control burn by size of logs. combined with a huge burn chamber, which allows use of a HUGE fan driven heat exchanger. 

seems the good OWB's need to be separated from the poluting OWB's. just like the good inside wood burners need to be separated from the bad one's....


----------



## cord arrow (Oct 21, 2006)

> some take care of this issue with multi-cycle burn schemes.



imagine that. conscience use of an appliance.


----------



## AB Services (Sep 17, 2008)

*Wow. LOOOOONG thread. How about this fellas? How about a few ideas for people like myself who are building a woodburner? I would gladly take any ideas that someone would have. I just got done laying down $660 bucks for steel to build one in my basement and would like to hear peoples ideas on how to make it efficient. The gas company in my area is blatantly ripping people off and this is my way of skirting $200 a month gas bills when my thermostat was set to 45 degrees and the furnace never really ran much at all. Maybe start another thread on woodburner designs? Little help here? *http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/newhouse/newhouse-stove.html
*My design is a blend of the water tank and a Riteway model 37. This will be my first winter using a woodburner in my house and I have had absolutely no experience with one at all until last year when I used the Riteway 37 to heat up my garage. Please allow me to pick your far more experienced with wood heat brains......... thanks.*


----------



## AB Services (Sep 21, 2008)

*HEY! Wake up people! No one has any ideas? How the heck do you upload a picture on here? I'd like to share a pic of what I am doing and get some feedback...... *


----------



## abohac (Sep 21, 2008)

Rspike said:


> We have some in our town and its like San Francisco SMOG in the Spring / Winter / Spring. History: http://www.woodheat.org/technology/NYreport.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outboiler.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outrickperth.htm & http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outbobpen.htm I have a neighbor that went from 3 cords a year with an indoor wood stove to 8 cords a year with his new wood boiler , he wanst happy.



Was he heating other things with his OWB? Like hot water, garage etc.? If you use your wood heater to heat hot water and you have a couple of kids, you are going to use alot more wood.


----------



## jdherville (Jul 17, 2009)

*Device may help solve pollution problems and produce a more efficient heat*

Hi I just want to introduce to you an invention that may help the problems of wood fire pollution out there. Its not on the market yet but in its final stages of testing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EXqin6s-Oc


----------



## jdherville (Jul 17, 2009)

But that's the whole point of the invention. Put a standard top of the line wood burner of any kind in winter conditions you're always going to get smoke cooling and dropping. I can't say exactly how it works just yet but I can say that it does increase the firebox heat significantly.


----------



## wavefreak (Jul 17, 2009)

If I could harness the heat on this thread then I could go off the grid.

Well anyway. Why can't they come up with a standard measure for wood volume? Cord? Face cord? Fireplace cord (who said that one)? What's wrong with just plain old cubic feet? Yeah. I know. I'm just asking for trouble.


----------



## CrappieKeith (Jul 17, 2009)

wavefreak said:


> If I could harness the heat on this thread then I could go off the grid.
> 
> Well anyway. Why can't they come up with a standard measure for wood volume? Cord? Face cord? Fireplace cord (who said that one)? What's wrong with just plain old cubic feet? Yeah. I know. I'm just asking for trouble.



It's called marketing!


----------



## ijon (Mar 8, 2011)

daddieslilgirl said:


> first id like to say if i did at this point have one and a neighbor complained id try to fix the problem. also woodstoves have been around for years and now everyone is having problems with the smoke? i think its more about smoke being blown up someones behind! there wasnt a problem until fuel oil sky rocketed and people started buying them. in the summer i fill my dads up once every 3-4 days. in the winter i fill it twice a day...he prefers once, but i dont agree and our electric up here is not reliable to say the least! i want them to be warm! if my neighbors who all have wood stoves indoor and out want to complain..they know where to come! no one does because wood is our sustanance so to speak, as well as theirs! it would cost me 700.00 to fill my oil barrel and it uses 3 for the winter thats 2100.00! wood is all i have! not all of us has a gazillion dollars to spend on electric, propane, or heating fuel! thats why we use the boilers! and i dont even have mine yet! but i have to cut the wood for it for my mom and dad! not that i mind they are my parents, i do mind all this epa bs! try having a sick baby with no fuel and only a woodstove when the ice is on the electric lines? what do you think keeps them warm? you all need to think about stuff like that! sorry stuff like this just [email protected]@@@@ me off! i apologize if ive offended anyone! i hope i have, maybe theyll think twice, about whether my nieces should freeze to death or a little smoke might get up their nose! sorry this is just a sore subject with me!


 
You are right wood stoves are putting the hurt on the propane companies.


----------



## ijon (Mar 8, 2011)

Rspike said:


> Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Given the high costs of oil and natural gas, a growing number of people in Massachusetts and elsewhere across the country are looking at outdoor wood-fired boilers as potential money-saving solutions for heating their homes.
> ...


 
I read that what looks like smoke is really steam from wet wood.


----------

