Thank you all. Spread the word. Test methods based upon assumptions can lead to poor in the field performance!
Maybe a question about if you belong to a fine site like this that is a source of knowledge that would never be able to be addressed in detail in an owners manual.
This survey is also running on other sites to increase data results. It's not easy to find on other sites, but hopefully the word will spread. On behalf of all industry, thank you all for not just responding to this survey, but for all the help and genuine care you show to those needing help.
Incidentally, if this group knows of another site where the survey should be posted, please advise. We must get plenty of responses in order for EPA to take the data seriously. Please point other wood burners you know to the survey in an effort to increase respondents. On a different note...I have been working on my 2023 fuel. Fortunately a US Forest Service person showed me a stash of dead standing (90' tall!!) Western Larch (Tamarack) I have another 4 cords to still harvest.
Done. I agree a comment section would be great. Or each answer could have an "other" option where you do a write in. Oh well no survey is perfect. Thanks for doing this BKVP!
I got about halfway through and quit. I work with these types of surveys a lot and this was poorly done IMO. There was no indication of overall length or how far along I was. Strike 1. The questions were poorly constructed where some were unanswerable as written and with no write-in options Strike 2 The creators made too many assumptions, like assuming I have only one wood-burning appliance. Strike 3
We made them years ago....but as you drive up efficiency, stack heat loss decreases and complicates draft.
Done. Thx BKVP. But--many of us have multiple stoves. And, the questions on "shoulder" vs "heating season" are vague for us. Otherwise, a OK basic survey. What's the real mission for this survey Chris ?
There is no hidden agenda or mission. EPA rule writers are developing a test method to be used in the near future. The Federal Reference Method permits stakeholders to attend meetings and contribute to the development of the new method. There are many, many assumptions being made by some of the stakeholders. I will give you a small example: "Wood burners operate their stoves on high burn at least half the time". In the absence of data, this obvious falsehood could result in stove having to burn half the time on high during testing. Then, with an assigned go/no go emissions grade, manufacturers would design stoves to pass the test. How is that real world? Then the stove designed to pass the test, may not perform as hoped by the consumer, because it was engineered to burn on high 50% or more of the time. I hope this will help you and everyone see the importance of this survey. And while this survey is not perfect and does not fit all wood burners perfectly, it will provide critical data. Thanks for the opportunity to explain the real world value of this survey. This question does make me again considered hosting a webinar for all the folks that want to attend and have a fireside chat about wood burning. As of now, I just do not have time for that....but I may have to make it happen.
