Logburners Page 2 / 2

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 8:40am
Sorry but nothing stopping you. Easy to make claims when you have no intention testing. 4012/13 is rubbish, therefore anything is a step in the right direction. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your product in stores some time in the future. Good luck.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 4:32pm
Who wrote 4013 ? who did ECan hire to write CM1 ?
You don't need to answer that .

Once the NZHHA admit that Roger has been right all these years , and that they were wrong to bag him , they will start developing down draft burners .
The logic behind them is pretty simple .
The clincher will be the use of the heat from them , and Roger is streets ahead of the field .
I have no intention of marketing a cross draft burner , tho I may install one of my design when I rebuild .
Hopefully by then , a burner wont need to be authorised if it has emission abatement . I want the hot water for radiators

spunkeymonkey, Feb 23, 4:19am
Hi heartofthehome. When I bought the property there was no log burner so I put the heat pump in myself (at that time it was March?April and I was going to have to wait 5 months for a log burner to be installed to which at this point of time there was no blah blah blah about not able to put one in - so because winter was around the corner it was faster for me to put a heat pump in if all this makes sense).

pezarointeriors, Feb 23, 4:56am
Hi there. Yes, it does. So when was the log burner removed?

golfaholic2, Feb 23, 5:37am
Not just log burners . the rule applies to ANY solid fuel heater . that could be an open fire

martin11, Feb 25, 3:55am
Seems to me that if this " Fantastic " log burner of Roger Bests is never going to be tested by him to the existing standards it is going to be a very limited market for them to be able to be installed in NZ . Would be a brave manufacturer to start making the units if they are not able to be Consented and installed in buildings in NZ because they have not been tested to comply with official standards that presently exist . Probably the MFE will have something to say , if a unit is installed with out the official paperwork ,insurance companies certainly will , good leg out if a claim involving the unit is required .

golfaholic2, Feb 25, 6:04am
I shall correct a few points for you there Martin.

1 - A manufacturer IS setting up in the far north . they have enough orders on the books to make it viable and projections looking good . some of the orders are from sitting and past MP's.
2 - The burner HAS been tested . and one could argue that the burner should be authorised under MfE guidelines for Functionally Equivalent Tests . ECan fail to recognise the test work already done , and the MfE are not terribly impressed with ECan's handling of the entire issue of FET's . under the OIA , I have a copy of an email where MfE express their regret over the way ECan have handled FET , and the MfE presume it's been done to protect existing manufacturers . specially mentioned are "foreign manufactures" but is covers the likes of Rogers burner , and others which have been kept from the market . the NZ Soapstone burner is another .
3- The test method used to authorise Ultra Low Emission burners , CM1 , is NOT a standard . ECan do not have the power to write standards .
The ULE burners have been authorised outside of MfE rules and guidelines , the rules got tweaked using CERA powers , so a back door was opened .
There is only 1 standard for testing a log burner , NZS 4013 , and it specifically EXCLUDES central heating appliances . therefore Roger can NOT have his burner tested to 4013 , even tho ECan have demanded he do so , and they have done for around 15 years
4 - Insurance is not a problem . the burners don't need to be tested via 4012/3 , being thermal efficiency / emissions respectively , to pass NZS 2019 (from memory) which is fire safety .
My insurer has already given me the OK to install the burner I built year before last . they have no issue covering me for loss as long as the burner is signed off by a suitably qualified individual .

I forsee a time in the very near future , where a burner wont need to be authorised , on condition full emission abatement systems are used in conjunction .

And , this may scare a few manufacturers , Roger Best has designed and tested an open fire which would easily pass CM1 , without filters

If you are still reading . Roger made a 3 1/2 hour submission on the issues at hand to the Environment Court back in 2008 . it was agreed that ECan would find a suitable way to authorise the technology , with the obvious way of future being down draft combustion .
ECan stalled and delayed until the new air plan was written , at which time ECan staff stood in front of the Environment Court and told what could be perceived as lies . staff changes at various levels followed , and no provision for the technologies were ever made .
I say "technologies" plural , because ECan have managed to keep Rogers emission abatement system from marketable use as well .

I repeat what I have said numerous times . ECan DO NOT want to rid our air sheds of home heating emissions . If the did , the skies would have been clear of them by now

martin11, Feb 25, 7:06pm
To Golfaholic 2
If Roger Bests manufacturer is taking orders please tell where ?

Over 2 1/2 years ago you stated they would be available soon ,PROVE IT >

golfaholic2, Feb 26, 5:51am
You can place an order with him directly . as I'm not sure that I can divulge the name of the manufacturer at this stage , not that anyone would recognise it as it's a startup firm.
A shame the jobs are all going to the far north , and not here in Canterbury . can thank ECan for that
Two and a half years ago the Govt appointed Commissioner of the Air section at ECan , David Bedford , told me personally that he hoped Rogers burner would be athorised and going into homes by mid/late 2013 .

There is a culture within ECan which is hell bent on keeping the status quo . thankfully things are slowly changing

Edited to add , I'm not deaf so there's no need to yell .

golfaholic2, Feb 28, 2:02am
Setting aside the log burner for a minute Martin ,

Would you like to comment on Roger Bests emission abatement systems ?
These were tested in 2002 , and again in 2008 .
The second lot of testing was paid for by ECan , with results posted on their website .
It was done using a conventional Osburn 1600 burner being fed gummy old man pine , coal and anything else which would make it smoke .
The results showed the flue emissions left cleaner than ambient air .
The one hiccup in the data was caused by a faulty charcoal activated filter , which on it's own , contributed to the tiny weight of collected particulate .
In filtering gases , heat recovery in the high 90% range is achieved .

There is no provision in the law or air plan for official testing or authorisation of these filter systems . the rules exclude them .
You can seek resource consent , which might costs thousands of dollars with no guarantee of success .
Is there provision in the new air plan for these systems ? nope .

How can a 70yr old man , still working to support R&D , fund , or gain funding to start commercial production of a product with effectively NO market ?

ECan are a failure . an embarrassment and to add injury to insult , our rates $$ pay these clowns

bergkamp, Mar 1, 11:42pm
I just read the 28thfeb new air plan by ecan
it proposes new clean air installs for all houses ,even new builds . or am I not reading this correctly ?

golfaholic2, Jan 10, 10:45pm
Provision created using CERA powers already allow new builds to have ULE burners .
Clean air approved burners will be phased out from 2019 .

Way back when ECan got behind so called "clean air approved" burners , they stuffed up big time . the system to authorise them as such was so flawed it was a joke .
By 2001 the Ethos came along . the inventor winning an environmental award . that same year , Roger Best took his burner , which could be 200 times cleaner , to ECan , and was given a short sharp shift .

Now ECan are trying to take credit for pushing manufacturers into creating the ranges of cleaner burners , when in fact , they should be looking at FULL TIME down draft burners only , and not these junk part time twin down draft twin fires .
It just adds fuel to my assertions , that ECan want a level of wood smoke kept in our air . they are hiding industrial emissions behind that smoke .

Sack ECan . they are killing us

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)