Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009
From: Alex Chernov <alex_stovemaster(at)>
Subject: Re: Bell testing
To: Dave Misiuk <misiuk(at)>
Cc: mheat(at)

Hi Dave, Norbert.
First, I made a mistake saying the whole test was 3hr 20 min. It was 2hr 20 min. Please change the record in the file.
Not much was left after 2 hrs. I also have used 2 hrs since many of Norbert's tests were cut at this mark. You can see that we loose a couple of points in efficiency if we end the test at the end of data. Otherwise, it has no influence.
Note, this test was done with all secondary holes open - all three rows, including the top large ones (Igor's style). Both grates were open as well. Air supply through the ash box door that was left wide open till the end. No change in damper position as well.
Yes, Dave, the end of test in raw data is at 19.4 O2 only. However, it was almost nothing left and together with Jerry we decided to stop (may be he just got bored or run out of beer :). It is a good point to discuss if we do want to continue the test till 95% recovery or want to change it for a lower mark. If you remember we have discussed potential of reducing the end of test to 80%. (snip).
At the end of this test we are already down to almost 30% efficiency due to high O2. If the main reason for testing for authorities is emissions, we know we don't get any PM at the end. So we should think if we need to shoot ourselves in the leg in selecting longer test periods that will generate lower efficiency. May be it is also a good point to suggest to change this in the ASTM protocol as well (snip)...
I have 16 tests from last winter were we carried them right to the total stop (3+ hrs). We can go back and select different cutting points and see how much influence it has. I think the difference can be up to 7-10% loss in efficiency. However, it can depend on air supply system.
Otherwise, we can choose whatever end for our own purposes to compare what is going on in our own testing.
 By the way, do you guys know what is the guideline for test length for Germany and Austria? What their average is based on?

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Dave Misiuk <misiuk(at)> wrote:

From: Dave Misiuk <misiuk(at)>
Subject: Re: Bell testing
To: "Alex Chernov" <alex_stovemaster(at)>
Cc: mheat(at)
Received: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 9:54 PM

Thanks Alex.

It looks like you didn't carry the test to 95% oxygen depletion recovery; I come up with 20.3 O2 is the 95% point for this test.

No big deal, except this is what all my testing was carried to following the Colorado Method for heaters.

I can't immediately compare to the testing of Norbert's retrofit design but I will go back and recalculate it using your stopping point to make it equivalent.  It will be interesting to then compare.

My method is to calculate the 95% threshold right after going through the lowest O2 level and then ending the testing exactly when I hit that pre-calculated level.  This allows me to average all the gas data (30 sec intervals) right in the Testo software and then just plug those numbers into the spreadsheet.

We can discuss the pros and cons of the O2 recovery level in Jan. and decide what we want to use.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Alex Chernov <alex_stovemaster(at)> wrote:
Hi Norbert, Dave.
Here are the results for the test plus raw data. I cut the test at 2 hours, but raw data has all 3hr 20min. Filter was taken out at 3hr 20min. Pretty clean burn at 1.12g/kg. No smell from the filter. Almost no CO spike at the beginning. CO climbs up at the end, as usual. O2 a bit on high end - efficiency somewhat lower for that reason.
Norbert, do you use a template to convert raw data into the chart or do it manually?

--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Dave Misiuk <misiuk(at)> wrote:

From: Dave Misiuk <misiuk(at)>
Subject: Bell testing
To: mheat(at), "Alex Chernov" <alex_stovemaster(at)>
Received: Friday, October 30, 2009, 11:35 PM

By the way, I am on the edge of my seat....what were the preliminary results for the workshop at Alex's, g/kg particulates and efficiency?