I was trying to lay low here, But I have to dis-agree. If they clinker in 2 bags what will a long hot run in the midst of the season do? IMHO if I paid top beans for a pellet and it burned like this I wouldn't be happy. Paying box store dime is a whole other story. But I'm sure these were not sold at a bargain price. If I were in Spock's shoes, I'd be a bit PO'd and not likely to purchase any in the future. I'd be looking for other options. But thats just me and my 2 pennies!
Probably not enough to notice, Ash content does lower BTU values slightly. If it clogs the burnpot and the stove starves for air it will burn rich and loose BTU's. But its the point of it. If you bought a steak and they gave you pot roast, Would you not to speak to the manager?
don't agree here.....I look at the Twin Ports data....looking at btu's/lb, %by weight of ash....cant say its misrepresented.
Well one got picked up for you...if you didn't it this afternoon, you will get it first thing in the morning....
I hear ya, I mentioned earlier that top dollar pellets should be free of Clinkers. The pic to me does not look like something that would adversely effect the burn quality. But I could be wrong, it has happened... I am not sure what kind of stove is running those but if I had something like that, which I have in the past, a touch more draft clears it up.
I don't want to get into a pizzing match, Nor step on toes. I have no pony in this race. I consider you an Doug as friends and probably shouldn't have, But I'm just trying Spock's shoes on. So I have to ask if it were others that purchased these, How would you feel? Tis all! From what I have read. Fuels with lower ash content have a higher BTU value. I seen test data where as received and moisture/ash free have been reported. Granted the moisture content has the biggest effect on BTU content. I've read in coal studies where a fuel with 30% ash content and equal moisture content had a noticeable reduction in BTU value. Pretty sure if we looked at test data of wood pellets that had a similar moisture content and higher ash content we'd see lower BTU values of the pellets with the higher ash content. Basically I'm pretty sure there's a reason why a pellet with 0.26% ash content has a higher BTU content than a one with 0.6% ash content. From what I see its mostly the lower ash content of the fiber that is making the difference(when moisture is similar).
no pizzing match here at all......I guess I'm just saying that the dime-sized clinkers here aren't of much consequence, but that's to me, of course. I've burned some fairly expensive pellets, and gotten very large clinkers (Turman)......ones that dwarf the ones pictured. That being said, I own a P61, which is pretty forgiving for that type of thing, and since I scrape my burnpot given the proscribed regimen (once a week), and accumulating clinkers are broken up and disposed of fairly readily. I will concede that certain other brands don't do well with clinkers, but also, given THEIR proscribed maintenance regimen, it also shouldn't be much of an issue. I do take a bit of issue in suggesting that the OP got ripped off tho......but maybe I am overly sensitive to that? Who knows? Given the steak/pot roast argument, I dunno, I guess I just think its a bad analogy (I don't think Golds are the pot roast of the pellet world). With the $20/ton price spread between NEWPS and Golds, i still think the Golds are the better deal. Most folks look at the numbers.....btu/lb, and ash content. Chlorides tend to be what contributes to clinker production, and they actually are listed in the Twin Ports data. The other thing about Twin Ports data...you'll see two sets of data....you want to use the "as delivered" data....much more telling.
OK, I see where you are comin from. But I'm not looking at the dime size clinker as the issue. More of what Spock's stove showed in his burn and the blackness in the stove. And his clinkers were much larger. I couldn't think of what would be a good comparison, So I went with the steak/pot roast. I was afraid to use pellet brands just because, And I wasn't gonna touch the NEWP!!! And I agree 100% the chloride(sodium/salt content) is the cause of the clinker formation. Test results should show the levels, But we can't always rely what level could cause them. I think there's more too it, But that's just me.
Man hug won't hurt a bit, and you won't get pregnant! I see the young crowd giving hugs. Usually at greetings and sports events. Concerning the pellets, really good to get everyone's take on the products. I take sides at times. Usually when I hear about someone being told OAK isn't needed. Ugh!
