The following website has a little more info on the EPA rated furnace at:>Link Scroll down their page and click on the EPA Caddy furnace. With some of the replies here, I'm not sure I made it clear - but I already have a woodstove that I like very much - but it's not sufficient for whole house heating, especially when it's 30F below zero. And, I have two wood furnaces, one in my house and one in my shop and barn. And, I've got nothing against outdoor furnaces per sé, just the lack of available technology in their design. We've got them all over here, and they are all bacially the same as far as combustion design does. Some are more rugged than others, some look better than others, etc. - but they are all inefficient if compared to what they could be with improved combustion design. I've read a few arguments made by outdoor boiler designers that claim combustion chamber efficiency is limited due to the water-jacket keeping the fire temperature too low. I don't know if that's true or not. I know many people that have more wood on the farm then they could ever burn, so for them, it's no big deal. For me, I'm not particularly young anymore, all my kids are grown and gone (except for a new 1 year old who so far refuses to work), and even though I've got 100 acres of woods, it still has to be gathered and/or cut, loaded, unloaded, big pieces split, etc. When I mentioned "wasting" wood . . . well, if you could possibly heat an area with 50% less wood by using better combustion technology, then, in this context, using a lower tech. furnace IS wasting wood even though it heats the house fine. I suspect the EPA Caddy furnace, if someone wants an inside forced hot-air unit, to be the most efficient on the market. For hot-water boilers, it looks as though the H.S. Tarm is the most promising - but I do not know anyone that has one. I've heard they are very expensive - but might be worth it in the long run. Their website is at: Link
|