# What is the best style stove, EPA, CAT, down drafter, one with a grate



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

I have two old stoves and a house with air leaks, bad windows, and a new addition without insulation yet. I have been reading on the other sight how great these modern stoves are, but there are a few here that do not agree. Our main stove that we have been burning for over twenty five years is a Earth stove without grates works great. Spider please make a comment on no grates air on top no problems with wet green wood. Our new stove is a Riteway furnace that is a hybrid down drafter with grates makes lots of coals. We have only been burning it for few weeks and have a lot to learn about it. WE did burn a smaller Riteway for over ten years.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 5, 2014)

Comment??
I don't even know what an "Earth" stove is...

As far as what "stove" is best... well, heck man, that ain't gonna' stir any pots... everyone on this board knows exactly what I'm gonna' say... and none of them were built after 1988‼
*


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 5, 2014)

Guessing this thread's gonna be "Interesting"

Today, tomorrow, or Tuesday, you won't hear many OWB guys chiming in (at least from this area) - the dog don't even want to go outside today.

Honestly, if I could make my own pellets for a reasonable cost, a pellet stove would be ideal. Automated handling, large storage quantity, stove is fed what it needs, as it needs it.

There are PTO powered pellet mills out there, but they ain't cheap, or economical - it takes a lot of fuel to run em.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Comment??
> I don't even know what an "Earth" stove is...
> 
> As far as what "stove" is best... well, heck man, that ain't gonna' stir any pots... everyone on this board knows exactly what I'm gonna' say... and none of them were built after 1988‼
> *


The Earth stove we have dose not have a grate in it we bought used in the 70"s or early 80's. The wood burns on the coals, air comes in from the back. The interesting thing is the stove has less problems with coal build up then lots of other designs.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

I thought Iwanted an EPA secondary burn stove, but reading all the trouble the uptown guys are having on the wood stove sight and some of the comments here I am reconsidering.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 5, 2014)

"Uptown guys"??


----------



## Gavman (Jan 5, 2014)

I am a month or so into using a new Blaze king Princess cat stove and I have to say its been more than a pleasure. super long burn times on lower heat, have had a couple of 20 hour burns when we were away overnight, typically we load it twice a day and forget it. 
Temps right now are around the freezing mark out and the stove is running hotter and boy it sure can throw the heat when you want it...
I dont know how it gets better than this for a wood stove indoors.... Unless it had a small water heater attached... another thread though


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 5, 2014)

Big city Iowa! LOL!


----------



## oldspark (Jan 5, 2014)

Gavman said:


> I am a month or so into using a new Blaze king Princess cat stove and I have to say its been more than a pleasure. super long burn times on lower heat, have had a couple of 20 hour burns when we were away overnight, typically we load it twice a day and forget it.
> Temps right now are around the freezing mark out and the stove is running hotter and boy it sure can throw the heat when you want it...
> I dont know how it gets better than this for a wood stove indoors.... Unless it had a small water heater attached... another thread though


It does seem like the cat people are for the most part satisfied with their stoves.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 5, 2014)

*There is No Perfect Stove!*

Every one is a trade off of some sort.

I'm pleased with the Jotul 118CB after 6 years, but it has it's quirks. It is much better than the VC Resolute Acclaim we had before it though.

This Jotul is a non-cat old style cast iron box stove with secondary air tubes. Lately I run it like an old school air tight and have the secondary air cut off. I get longer burn times and more than enough heat.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> "Uptown guys"??


on the wood stove forum were they have competions on burn times. Rember spider you do not like me because I because I am uncouth and burn green wood a lot.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell,
I don't remember ever expressing that I do not like you??
Heck man, I've never met you.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

sunfish said:


> *There is No Perfect Stove!*
> 
> Every one is a trade off of some sort.
> 
> ...


I respect your opinion a lot, you are in my neighbourhood and have a similar circumstance. I have been afraid of a cast stove for fear of warping, breakage and maintenance on all the gaskets. By the way you influenced me to buy a 550 and it rocks. I have not owned a small fire wood saw for over thirty years , when I traded my brand new 026 for a husky.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Eric Modell,
> I don't remember ever expressing that I do not like you??
> Heck man, I've never met you.


You made comments about me burning less then perfect wood , not quite bright.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> I respect your opinion a lot, you are in my neighbourhood and have a similar circumstance. I have been afraid of a cast stove for fear of warping, breakage and maintenance on all the gaskets. By the way you influenced me to buy a 550 and it rocks. I have not owned a small fire wood saw for over thirty years , when I traded my brand new 026 for a husky.


Yes, you got a great saw! 

Don't be afraid of a cast stove, they are not likely to warp like steel can. Heating with wood in cast stoves since 1980 and never had a warp. Also have had three cast stoves with glass windows and never had a glass crack, or break. Gaskets? Not a problem here!

I've had 4 cast stoves since moving to Mo in 1990. The first (Waterford) got replaced after 7 years because it was too small. It's been heating part of my shop full time for the last 14 years and is still fine, fantastic stove! Have another older cast stove heating the large part of the shop. It's just a cheap large imported box stove, been in use for 24 years. Both are cranking out the heat right now, plus the Jotul in the house...

The Jotul we have in the house now is almost too big for our 1200 sq feet. But it's very nice when real cold. Super easy stove to operate!

I'll probably never own anything but a cast iron stove, w/glass, but that's just me...


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell,
"Criticism" ain't equal to "dislike"... it ain't even in the same ballpark.
People who love each other dearly will still criticise each other when situations warrant it.
If'n your feelings get injured that easily... internet message boards ain't the place for you.
*


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

sunfish said:


> Yes, you got a great saw!
> 
> Don't be afraid of a cast stove, they are not likely to warp like steel can. Heating with wood in cast stoves since 1980 and never had a warp. Also have had three cast stoves with glass windows and never had a glass crack, or break. Gaskets? Not a problem here!
> 
> ...


Are the Joutul's secondary burn or cat? I do not know why but I thought the cast stoves were high maintenance.I always thought I wanted a Buck, but the local dealer recommended a Jotul


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Eric Modell,
> "Criticism" ain't equal to "dislike"... it ain't even in the same ballpark.
> People who love each other dearly will still criticise each other when situations warrant it.
> If'n your feelings get injured that easily... internet message boards ain't the place for you.
> *


I guess you like me and are just critical of my ways. We have lots of wood close just short on time. We find ourselves out of seasoned wood by Christmas and try to stay a month or so ahead.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm mixed on my P.E. non-cat stove. It is fairly efficient, and puts off good heat, but it's size is deceiving. P.E. basically manufactures 3 box sizes. After that the boxes are wrapped in different clothing (wrappers) to make up the different models. It is a good-sized stove, but the box (IMO) is a lot smaller than the exterior size would lead you to believe. When it's running at temp, you only see heat waves coming out of the chimney. It will NOT tolerate un- or under-seasoned wood. when closed down for better heting, It doesn't draft enough for Hedge and the coals build up and smother in the back easily if you don't continually re-arrange the coal bed. It has saved a ton on my propane, along with a new CH/A and some insulation. I replace the door gasket every year as it goes out like clock work and the "door wash" grate warped quickly but it's only cosmetic. The rest of the stove is holding up well. When it's loaded fresh and gets up to temp it puts out good heat The fluctuations are much faster and more noticeable than a Cat or pre-epa stove though as the burn-time is a lot less than a Cat and the coals don't provide near the heat output of the pre-epa models. I could be wrong, but I'd say of total output, the break-down is like this: 1/3 of the heat is from the coal bed, 1/3 from the active fire and 1/3 from the secondary-burn. If the wood is of lower heat value then the ratios index to the left 1/2, 1/4 and 1/4 respectively. When it's just coals you lose anywhere from 1/2-2/3 of your heat and it's definitely noticeable. My friends VC Defiant for comparison's sake, gets another 1-4 hours per load as compared to mine fed the same wood, (with soft wood lasting less time than hard of course). 

I'm not saying I don't like the stove as it's been much more efficient than many. However, having to remove buckets of live coals, to create room for logs to reclaim 50-66% of my heat (and carrying that fire hazard through my house to get it outside) really annoys me. I may replace it at sometime with a VC Defiant or one of the larger Jotuls. I would also do an older Buck or similar smoke dragon in a heart beat. Hell I'd almost consider a barrel stove, if not for my babies. If you're willing to work within it's design constraints, it works VERY well. I just don't feed it wet wood and I have better luck when mixing Hedge with a softer wood like Silver Maple or Hackleberry to add a bit of oxygen to the fire.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Gavman said:


> I am a month or so into using a new Blaze king Princess cat stove and I have to say its been more than a pleasure. super long burn times on lower heat, have had a couple of 20 hour burns when we were away overnight, typically we load it twice a day and forget it.
> Temps right now are around the freezing mark out and the stove is running hotter and boy it sure can throw the heat when you want it...
> I dont know how it gets better than this for a wood stove indoors.... Unless it had a small water heater attached... another thread though


Our old Riteway had a water heater. The think I was most disappointed with the Earth Stove was it did not lend well to a water heater.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 5, 2014)

I have to temper my above post with the disclaimer that my house is around 2500sqft (2 story) and the original part was built in 1880. The only square corners are the picture frames and it's only properlly insulated on the West and North sides... No Attic insulation and the doors (all 4 of them) leak like sieves. I am also asking a zone heating device to essentially take on the task of being a central heater, for which it was never intended (regardless of what the sales brochure says with it's 3000 sqft assertion). To that end it has done very well and It's just the particular quirks that drive me nuts. If I bought another non-cat it would be a european made one or a smoke dragon. Otherwise I'd have a cat and have an extra cat on hand for when it inevitably cracked out, on the weekend, in a blizzard, when the power was out...


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I have to temper my above post with the disclaimer that my house is around 2500sqft (2 story) and the original part was built in 1880. The only square corners are the picture frames and it's only properlly insulated on the West and North sides... No Attic insulation and the doors (all 4 of them) leak like sieves. I am also asking a zone heating device to essentially take on the task of being a central heater, for which it was never intended (regardless of what the sales brochure says with it's 3000 sqft assertion). To that end it has done very well and It's just the particular quirks that drive me nuts. If I bought another non-cat it would be a european made one or a smoke dragon. Otherwise I'd have a cat and have an extra cat on hand for when it inevitably cracked out, on the weekend, in a blizzard, when the power was out...


This is very inserting because I thought I wanted a secondary burn stove, But the comments lead to a non EPA stove or, cast or cat and none of those options were on my list.


----------



## flotek (Jan 5, 2014)

You need to invest in blown in insulation it's the best money you'll spend and worth the effort. . Same with decent windows. . This is what you should be thinking about not stoves ..but If you are the type that burns less than seasoned wood you won't be happy with a epa unit or a cat and they will burn like total crap .. You might as well just keep using a old steel box with a blower instead of these new fangled fancy units That offer long clean burns . High tech wood burning requires low moisture and your not going to achieve that if your wood hasn't been cut *split * and stacked for at least a year .sounds like for you a 1800s style parlor stove is best


----------



## flotek (Jan 5, 2014)

There are a ton of variables and firebox sizes and things to consider in these different designs but here's a general ~ way you can think about how they function and so fourth . A older airtight stove ( most wood furnaces use this design too ) burns hot and good but releases most of the btu in the wood for say 5 hrs the new style epa units have secondary burning and release somewhat softer heat in the wood but over say 8 hrs the cat stoves go further yet and can go 12 hr plus but it's not blazing billy hot ..new units require low moisture to accomish this. By using an old air tight design hour going to use nearly twice the amount of wood and your missing out on 30% of the extra heat .. For you that heat just gets wasted and goes right up the flue because it's not being burned off


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

flotek said:


> You need to invest in blown in insulation it's the best money you'll spend and worth the effort. . Same with decent windows. . This is what you should be thinking about not stoves ..but If you are the type that burns less than seasoned wood you won't be happy with a epa unit or a cat and they will burn like total crap .. You might as well just keep using a old steel box with a blower instead of these new fangled fancy units That offer long clean burns . High tech wood burning requires low moisture and your not going to achieve that if your wood hasn't been cut *split * and stacked for at least a year .sounds like for you a 1800s style parlor stove is best


We are holding out out for foam, and rock wool insulation. I have not run the numbers yet but looks like 6 or 8 grand to insulate. I am really just wanting to discuss the the science of burning wood. Some of these modern stoves are not the best fit for all applications. The observation I see is, high heat demand and the the modern efficient stoves can be a problem.


----------



## flotek (Jan 5, 2014)

Well if you just want to make a ton of heat to over compensate for your house issues There's plenty of wood furnaces with huge 7 +sq ft fireboxes that will throw way over 100,000 btu in the house , but you better love to cut wood and have plenty of it in hand to feed your dragon. It's not uncommon to burn through. 8 +cords log truck amounts in some of these units what they lack in technology they make up in shear size and amount of wood being burned but its inefficient and wasting a great deal of heat


----------



## flotek (Jan 5, 2014)

I heat my 2,000 sq ft house comfortably with a firebox that's around only 3 sq ft using a epa wood furnace . It uses about half the wood as my old airtight and if I wanted to I could go 12 hr in between loads and do it all cleanly with low emissions . Take they same unit put in a barn with no insulation and yeah I'd probably not keep it at 72 and it would go through more wood


----------



## sunfish (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Are the Joutul's secondary burn or cat? I do not know why but I thought the cast stoves were high maintenance.I always thought I wanted a Buck, but the local dealer recommended a Jotul


They used to make both but not sure now. 

My inlaws have the largest Jotul and it is a cat, is around 17 years old.

Mine is the 118CB and is non-cat.


----------



## cheeves (Jan 5, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I have to temper my above post with the disclaimer that my house is around 2500sqft (2 story) and the original part was built in 1880. The only square corners are the picture frames and it's only properlly insulated on the West and North sides... No Attic insulation and the doors (all 4 of them) leak like sieves. I am also asking a zone heating device to essentially take on the task of being a central heater, for which it was never intended (regardless of what the sales brochure says with it's 3000 sqft assertion). To that end it has done very well and It's just the particular quirks that drive me nuts. If I bought another non-cat it would be a european made one or a smoke dragon. Otherwise I'd have a cat and have an extra cat on hand for when it inevitably cracked out, on the weekend, in a blizzard, when the power was out...


Get yourself a Tempwood!! I've used one since '77!! Heats this 200 year old house and 1/2 isn't insulated!! 
Heard they are making them again in North Adams, MA! Mohawk Industries. Great Downdrafter and Easy to run!! Takes a serious load of wood and really puts out the heat! Most of my friends run them!!


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 5, 2014)

I am using a Pacific Energy Super 27 in a fairly well insulated ranch home with only one level that has 2100 square feet. This has been the main source of heat for 13 years and am very pleased with its performance. The stove has required no maintenance other than several secondary burn baffle gaskets(put in a new one when I take the baffle out for inspection and cleaning etc). It is -2 and 20mph winds outside, but a nice 72 inside as I type this. When very cold like this, I use a fan to move a bit more heat to the back bedrooms to keep temps more even. The only time I have coal build up problems is when burning Elm exclusively, and several splits of seasoned oak thrown in take care of excess coals.
This stove has worked great for me for many years and I highly reccomend them, but not all applications are the same........your mileage may vary as they say. That is my 2 cents.
Stay Warm!
Ron


----------



## 7sleeper (Jan 5, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> Guessing this thread's gonna be "Interesting"
> 
> Honestly, if I could make my own pellets for a reasonable cost, a pellet stove would be ideal. Automated handling, large storage quantity, stove is fed what it needs, as it needs it.


But you can!
Just watch this guy make pellets....





7


----------



## laynes69 (Jan 5, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with the modern stoves, they have many benefits over the old. The problem lies when a stove is undersized for the heat load, or other things like an improper chimney or poor fuel is used. It's kinda like getting the wrong tires for the wrong load and blaming the tires or buying a car that can haul 4 when you need 5. The first year we upgraded, I had wood left over from the season, something that never happened before. I no longer had to worry about chimney fires either. Where I might pull a couple gallons of creosote from the chimney with the old unit, I now pull a quart. We also went from burning a half tank (200 gallons) of propane, to none with the new unit. I did tighten up our home, line our chimney and I started burning seasoned wood. Would I go back, nope.


----------



## StihlFroling (Jan 5, 2014)

Alot of the problems with gassers are user error or installer error. Theres guys out there burning fresh downed trees, who needs seasoned wood. Then wonder why they have all this creosote build up, or burn twice the wood, can't get stove to recover. The list goes on. Or the guy who has a 35gpm pump on a 60 gallon stainless empyre, no wonder it takes days to raise the temp.
The best stoves are the old cast iron units that are still working today with a knowledgable person behind the fire. I personally say the Tarm/Froling,Effecta, Vigas is the best thing money can buy today to burn wood, but its not for everyone. It doesnt idle, you have to have storage, its crazy efficient with full controls. Nothing but burns cleaner with oxygen CO sensors monitoring flue gas,burn rate control and burn efficiency. You can fire the Tarm once every 3-5 days depending on your system. Automatic or manual. Only thing is you can just have a fire. As far as OWB's, almost everyones quality in materials has gone down. And warranty is a joke for most, and you will need it with the newer units.


----------



## hman33 (Jan 5, 2014)

Look at the new DS Machine Comfort Max wood /coal stove.It is a serious wood heater with secondary burn and circulator tubes up through the firebox.


----------



## SWI Don (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> I guess you like me and are just critical of my ways. We have lots of wood close just short on time. We find ourselves out of seasoned wood by Christmas and try to stay a month or so ahead.



Unless you have a ready supply of standing dead elm and can let it "season" for a month you shouldn't have a cat stove. I have burned standing dead elm (both red and American) fresh from the field but have better luck when it has had time to sit for a bit. Hissing wood will make for a shorter catalyst life and more cleaning of the catalyst. 

I have found if I burn well seasoned wood I only need to clean the catalyst in the fall prior to the new season. Cat stoves work great but you must be prepared with well seasoned wood to get the best trouble free performance out of them.


----------



## zogger (Jan 5, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> "Uptown guys"??



the rich dudes uptown, with all the expensive designer new stuff..designer stove, designer dog, car, whatever.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 5, 2014)

Seems Locust Cutter is another Pacific Energy coal-shoveler. I honestly didn't hear much of this before Spidey started on his rampage last year. I'd be downright ticked off if I was throwing heat out into the yard. It just doesn't happen with my stove/installation/application, so I don't know what to say for sure, but I can guess from my experience that you all don't have enough stove. 

I came close to falling for the 2-2.5 cf firebox being "enough" for 2000+ sq ft, it just ain't so, unless you live way down south, or have a VERY well insulated home, or can tend to it every few hours. No replacement for displacement still rules.

3.4CF of secondary burn firebox works well HERE for about 8 hours max, to get the 12 I'd like to have would take a bigger stove, MAYBE a different combustion system (I've heard the cat stories, but they don't talk much about efficiency when it's below 0), or simply dealing with some temperature loss at the end of the cycle (what I do now.)


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> *I guess you like me and are just critical of my ways.*



Now wait just a second... hold on a minute...
I said I don't remember ever expressing that I do not like you...
But I don't remember ever expressing that I do like you either 




flotek said:


> *By using an old air tight design hour going to use nearly twice the amount of wood and your missing out on 30% of the extra heat... ...better love to cut wood and have plenty of it in hand to feed your dragon.*



OK now... just hang on another friggin' minute...
Lots of guys are tellin' me that not every EPA stove, not every install, and not every user is having the same issues I did and it's unfair for me to generalize all because of my experience (even though I'm not the only one).

I'm gonna' say the same damn thing about your statements...
Except for barrel stoves (which do use a lot of wood), the firebox in my current smoke dragon furnace is the largest as I've ever owned... it puts out more friggin' heat than any firebox I've ever owned... and considering the temperatures this year I'd have to say it sure-in-hell don't use "twice the amount of wood"‼ It uses less than that EPA box did... and I'm thinkin' it uses about what the smaller smoke-dragon box before it used, while producing twice the heat‼

That 30% "extra heat" is crap... it's based on advertizing BS... there ain't any "real-world" proof of 30% and you know it. The efficiency rating is based on *chimney emissions* during testing in a *lab*, it ain't based on *heat output* and never has been... and it sure-in-hell ain't based on any "real-world" use or testing. If used and loaded properly, "an old air-tight design" (as you call it) will burn extremely clean and highly efficient... and that's based on real-world experience of over 40 years‼ If used improperly... well... not so much... no different then the new-fangled ones run crappy if ya' use 'em wrong.

Actually, when people defend the new-fangled, or especially when they slam the old stuff, it's statements like yours that get me riled-up‼ It ain't based on anything but advertizing hype, EPA propaganda and number manipulation. Yeah, sure, worse case, with an idiot running the smoke dragon, maybe 30%... maybe... maybe‼ But the same could be said about the new-fangled if an idiot is running it. In the real world, equal size fireboxes, equal quality, and someone with half a friggin' brain runnin' 'em... I'm bettin', over the long haul (like a full heating season), there ain't dry spit difference. Well... maybe there is a difference... ya' don't haf'ta keep screwin' around with the smoke dragon, just load it and slam the door until the next loading‼

It's just like your statement...
*"It's not uncommon to burn through. 8 +cords log truck amounts in some of these units..."*
It's also not uncommon to burn well under that amount in some of those units... but, you don't say that do ya?? I can tell ya', going on what I've burned so far ('round 1½, maybe close to 2 cord) I won't get anywhere near 8 cord in my old uninsulated farmhouse... and this is an unusually friggin cold year‼ It depends on how well you load it, how well you run it, what sort of wood you burn, how large an area your heating and a dozen other things... no friggin' different than any other firebox... EPA certified or not. The biggest wood-hog firebox I've ever owned was that EPA POS I used last year... so where's that put us now?? The damn thing is out in my shop now, and it uses more wood that the old barrel stove did, while giving less heat... so where's that put us now??

Oh... and I still ain't cleaned my chimney... and my chimney is still clean‼
Ain't never cleaned in over twenty years... ain't never been any need to clean it‼
How's that for "clean burning" in a smoke-dragon??
Give-me-a-friggin'-break‼

OK... rant over.
*


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 5, 2014)

flotek said:


> There are a ton of variables and firebox sizes and things to consider in these different designs but here's a general ~ way you can think about how they function and so fourth . A older airtight stove ( most wood furnaces use this design too ) burns hot and good but releases most of the btu in the wood for say 5 hrs the new style epa units have secondary burning and release somewhat softer heat in the wood but over say 8 hrs the cat stoves go further yet and can go 12 hr plus but it's not blazing billy hot ..new units require low moisture to accomish this. By using an old air tight design hour going to use nearly twice the amount of wood and your missing out on 30% of the extra heat .. For you that heat just gets wasted and goes right up the flue because it's not being burned off





laynes69 said:


> There's nothing wrong with the modern stoves, they have many benefits over the old. The problem lies when a stove is undersized for the heat load, or other things like an improper chimney or poor fuel is used. It's kinda like getting the wrong tires for the wrong load and blaming the tires or buying a car that can haul 4 when you need 5. The first year we upgraded, I had wood left over from the season, something that never happened before. I no longer had to worry about chimney fires either. Where I might pull a couple gallons of creosote from the chimney with the old unit, I now pull a quart. We also went from burning a half tank (200 gallons) of propane, to none with the new unit. I did tighten up our home, line our chimney and I started burning seasoned wood. Would I go back, nope.



Not trying to be argumentative here, but my draft is fine, after 2 seasons, the total debris that came out of my chimney after being professionally cleaned was about the same a the small coffee cans (1/2lb?) and the wood I burn is seasoned at least 1 year from time of splitting to time of burning... I still have the same complaints. My great Aunt had a super 27 (the reason I went with PE) and it was fantastic! She, however, had a wonderfully insulated house with an unusually thick concrete pad and poured concrete walls. Once it got hot or cold, it stayed that way. Modern stoves have their place, but the old-tech still can still be the better choice, depending on your application.


----------



## laynes69 (Jan 5, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I have to temper my above post with the disclaimer that my house is around 2500sqft (2 story) and the original part was built in 1880. The only square corners are the picture frames and it's only properlly insulated on the West and North sides... No Attic insulation and the doors (all 4 of them) leak like sieves. I am also asking a zone heating device to essentially take on the task of being a central heater, for which it was never intended (regardless of what the sales brochure says with it's 3000 sqft assertion). To that end it has done very well and It's just the particular quirks that drive me nuts. If I bought another non-cat it would be a european made one or a smoke dragon. Otherwise I'd have a cat and have an extra cat on hand for when it inevitably cracked out, on the weekend, in a blizzard, when the power was out...



So here your stove is well undersized for the home, where your shoveling out coals to make more room for wood. Your aunt however has a well insulated home with no problems, which proves my point. If the stove is sized correctly, it can burn a full cycle. On the otherhand if your too small, you push the stove with more wood trying to recoupe heat. This causes excessive coaling. For us, the tighter our home becomes (a 2500 sqft Victorian) the less coaling becomes an issue. My point is it's not always the technology, but the application it is used in.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 5, 2014)

Truce flag for a minute!

Spidey - you've got a concept and might not even know it yet. Instead of measuring by the "stack loss measurement", why aren't we measuring by "Heat Output Measurement" - put the stove in a room, measure the BTUs transferred to the room on a given load of wood, and make that our efficiency measurement?

It shouldn't be hard to scientifically measure, but maybe (and you know I'm playing devils' advocate here), it's gonna give the "wrong" answers.

No I haven't looked through the EPA proposal from the other thread (which one of the other mods moved btw, not that I blame them), but I doubt there's much difference in the measuring method. Emissions per BTU DELIVERED might be a better standard of measure.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

I a going out on a limb, never having burnt a modern stove.
Catalytic great for low heat demand long burn time must have very dry wood.
Secondary burn design not as fussy as a catalytic good for extended burns but will build coals at high demand not enough air.
Smoke dragons good for all out heat during high demand times less maintenace and will burn any wood one has on hand.


----------



## Gavman (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> I a going out on a limb, never having burnt a modern stove.
> Catalytic great for low heat demand long burn time must have very dry wood.
> Secondary burn design not as fussy as a catalytic good for extended burns but will build coals at high demand not enough air.
> Smoke dragons good for all out heat during high demand times less maintenace and will burn any wood one has on hand.




I think the most important thing about burning wood in whatever device you use is dry properly seasoned wood....
And now that I have some experience with cat stoves, sure extra long low heat burns are easy to get but long (8 to 12 hour) burns with very decent heat output are certainly easily doable with these stoves.
I am guessing cat stoves are not all alike too like most things but I can tell you awesome stoves are available if you research it...


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 5, 2014)

Can anyone comment on what the down side is of an oversized modern stove.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 5, 2014)

laynes69 said:


> So here your stove is well undersized for the home, where your shoveling out coals to make more room for wood. Your aunt however has a well insulated home with no problems, which proves my point. If the stove is sized correctly, it can burn a full cycle. On the otherhand if your too small, you push the stove with more wood trying to recoupe heat. This causes excessive coaling. For us, the tighter our home becomes (a 2500 sqft Victorian) the less coaling becomes an issue. My point is it's not always the technology, but the application it is used in.



95%t of the time, I have it barely running above idle as that is the best heat retention point of the stove and affords the longest burn-time. Any more and it goes up the flue while eating the load much faster. My longest burn-time so far is about 3 hours and that was loaded to the brim with Hedge. Once there's a decent coal bed, the depth you lose is effectively halved. It's a vicious cycle. If I was running my stove wide open to try to make more heat, to account for my home's inefficiencies, I'd agree with you but I'm simply trying to augment my Central heating and undercut my propane bill. The stove is tight and I'm feeding it seasoned, hard wood, (Hedge, various Oaks, Honey Locust, Mulberry and Hackleberry). I also define a fire as an active primary flame and secondary flame. In other words, that dog don't hunt.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Can anyone comment on what the down side is of an oversized modern stove.


We have a modern stove designed for up to 2000 sq feet. We have 1200 sq ft, good doors/windows/insulation. Works great when it is COLD. Pain to keep a fire going and not run us out of the house when temps are above 20 degrees.

I personally would rather have a smaller stove that can be run more efficiently/hotter without having to open windows.

But right now it's very good to have a 'oversized' stove! For the next few days anyway...


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 5, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Can anyone comment on what the down side is of an oversized modern stove.



They don't take that well to being throttled down all the way to compensate for having too large of an appliance for the area it's heating.


----------



## flotek (Jan 5, 2014)

White spider the reference of using a 8 cord log truck of wood was for those who don't insulate their house and use wood hog units with a firebox beyond 7 cubic feet.to make a point that it will consume a good amount of wood. ..i was not referencing a typical average or perhaps what your use is , so you may want to re read how my post was worded . You seem like a well meaning guy who happened to have some issue with your epa stove and perhaps hot a lemon or gave up to soon I don't know but whatever it was sounds like your going to paint any new technology appliance with the same brush based on your experience on one stove . The fact is we know now that there's more btu in a stick of wood than what meets the eye and by burning the secondary gas off it allows for up to 30% more energy that's real heat that you will make use of instead of going up the flue . That's not propaganda its a fact that means its observable can be tested and repeated . In my experience I'm set to be using around half the wood I used to with my epa unit that doesn't mean everyone will but for me that's what I'm seeing I'm also seeing longer burn times and even heat instead of swings. .im sorry whatever unit you had didn't work out but your experience is truly unique being most everyone has seen numerous benefits of secondary burning . I no longer use fire starters kindling or play Boy Scout like my old unit and no I'm not a yuppie kid who just got a new stove I've been around the scene and owned and operated new and old woodburners for years so I can compare with experience . I would put my 3.5 cubic foot epa furnace against any airtight non secondary style model any day of the week using same wood and outperform it every time and burn cleaner too . Look we all know The epa for the most part like any govt agency is a total joke and kills a lot of our jobs but this is probably the only thing they ever got right when they set out to make cleaner burners . Believe what you want but I'm seeing longer cleaner burning and on less wood ,that's a fact jack . If your burner is working it for you than that's great ! but just be advised there are other options and wood burning has come a long way in recent years


----------



## zogger (Jan 6, 2014)

Sounds like there is a need for a convertible heater, one that can be "sized" as per expected demand. the shoulder season smaller box, then adjust or remove some stuff, get it to the full bore winter size.


----------



## flotek (Jan 6, 2014)

3 hr burn time. ? Dang no wonder your looking at other options . I could toss some logs and cardboard boxes in my firepit in the backyard and get that . Concerning the heat swings : this is why when its mild you learn to use wood to your advantage . I like to use hemlock slabs ( we have slot of Amish sawmills around here ) so I don't get the house overheated . They take the chill off but don't build up a coal bed . Operator error can usually account for too heavy a coal bed . Its avoidable ..They usually come by reloading to frequently then guys don't realize how to burn them off . You just rake them all toward the very front of the stove and toss a small thin slab on top then open your air intake to wide open and leave it for next few hours and enjoy the heat from those coals.proper technique on running these new stoves it goes a long way and avoids the concerns you have


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

I've tried that too and still experience a lot of heat loss due to volume loss. I typically burn Hackleberry, Silver Maple, a bit of Cedar that we're always cleaning out of pastures and occasionally some piss elm in the shoulder seasons. Right now, it's Hedge, Mulberry, Honey Locust Burr/White and Red Oaks... It's throttled down as soon as it's lit properly and there's secondary ignition. I run it up at least once a night for a smaller load just to try to burn the coals down a bit and make sure that the chimney isn't getting sooted up. I guess i'm just un-impressed with the coal-bed only heat output and how quickly it eats logs. Typical refill time, once there's a coal bed and the corresponding volume loss is around 1-2 hrs depending on how hard the wood is and how much I can fit in. My splits are between 2"x"2 and 5"x5" with the length varying from 16-22" as the pretty, uniform pieces get sold and I keep the various cutoffs for my own use.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> *Instead of measuring by the "stack loss measurement", why aren't we measuring by "Heat Output Measurement"...*



That's a simple answer... Because the EPA regulations are not, and have never been intended to reduce fuel usage, increase heat output or heating efficiency. The sole, single purpose intent, or goal, of those regulations is, and always has been to reduce emissions... nothing more, and nothing less. It is stated over and over... it's about emissions... it's all about what's come from the stack. But the BTU output is measured... remember my example in the other thread for the Spectrum?? (I'm adding burn time for this example)

Efficiency - 81.6%
Heat Output (EPA) -36,600 BTU
Heat Output (Cordwood) -72,000 BTU
Burn Time (Max.) - 8 Hours
Why is that so hard for "believers" to comprehend?? To achieve the 81.6% efficiency the stove was producing only 36,600 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle. But... let me say it again... BUT‼ Pacific Energy says they get "up to" 72,000 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle with cordwood in their real world(?) test. Well... the simple fact is... YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO‼ It is impossible... let me say it again... IMPOSSIBLE... to double BTU output without *significantly* lowering both efficiency and burn time‼

So to you true believers... you disciples of the "new" technology... YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO‼ It is impossible‼ Unless the Lord our Christ himself has stepped in and performed a great miracle... it is not possible for you to be getting anything near the efficiency rating at the same time you're getting the heat output you claim, or believe, you're getting.

The point of my posts over the last 2 years is not that the "new" technology is automatically *bad*, rather that it ain't automatically *good*. Use the proper tool for the job and it will be *good*... don't matter what technology used. "True" believers make blanket statements, like the "new" technology will automatically give you 30% more heat, or you'll automatically get more heat using less wood... and that's simply BS‼ (Heck, I even bought into it for a while, listening to the "true" believers here.) I tried using my PE stove to heat the entire house, it was the wrong tool for the job... now it's in my shop, it's the wrong tool for the job. If I were to install it in a cozy little den somewhere I'd likely love the thing. If the properly sized, quality made, proper style, wood burning appliance is used for the intended purpose it will work wonderfully... and it won't matter if it's the "new" or "old"... run correctly, in the "real world", there won't be enough difference to spit at. The "new" technology does not have a lock on secondary burn... run correctly the "old" technology also achieves secondary burn... it's just that the "new" technology does it automatically (the user can't screw it up as easily)... it removes the need to use your brain‼ The biggest trade-off is in size and weight... the "new" technology, by it's very design (and with few exceptions) will be larger and/or heavier to do the same job. (And likely more expensive.)
*


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I've tried that too and still experience a lot of heat loss due to volume loss. I typically burn Hackleberry, Silver Maple, a bit of Cedar that we're always cleaning out of pastures and occasionally some piss elm in the shoulder seasons. Right now, it's Hedge, Mulberry, Honey Locust Burr/White and Red Oaks... It's throttled down as soon as it's lit properly and there's secondary ignition. I run it up at least once a night for a smaller load just to try to burn the coals down a bit and make sure that the chimney isn't getting sooted up. I guess i'm just un-impressed with the coal-bed only heat output and how quickly it eats logs. Typical refill time, once there's a coal bed and the corresponding volume loss is around 1-2 hrs depending on how hard the wood is and how much I can fit in. My splits are between 2"x"2 and 5"x5" with the length varying from 16-22" as the pretty, uniform pieces get sold and I keep the various cutoffs for my own use.


Bryan, this doesn't sound too good for Pacific Energy. I know it's not the norm with these 'modern' stoves, but you might try a flu damper and see if that helps with the burn time?

Another thing would be to tighten up your house and add more insulation, then ya can let the coal bed burn down without getting the house too cold...


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

Ideally I'd like to have somewhere between a medium and large cat stove on one end of the house and a larger stove, say like the aforementioned Tempwood, or a Wonderwood where the PE stove currently resides. I will get to the insulation and doors as quickly as possible, bubt after that the house will still be inefficient to heat as it is a series of add-ons which were not thought out well from a convective airflow point. The cat stove would be nice for all-day heat, on a low setting and the bigger one for when we're for nights/weekends.


----------



## super3 (Jan 6, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> But you can!
> Just watch this guy make pellets....
> 
> 
> ...






That was great!


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

sunfish said:


> Bryan, this doesn't sound too good for Pacific Energy. I know it's not the norm with these 'modern' stoves, but you might try a flu damper and see if that helps with the burn time?
> 
> Another thing would be to tighten up your house and add more insulation, then ya can let the coal bed burn down without getting the house too cold...


Don,
I might try the damper idea. I WILL do the insulation, but I don't have $8-14K burning a hole in my pocket right now. The West side add-on, was only partially insulated and the original part, literally had the siding, (new vinyl BTW) screwed to the studs, with sheetrock on the other side. We discovered this when the insurance contractor took some of the siding off of the West side, after a tornado and he and I stood there speechless for a few minutes. Needless to say the affected West and North side now are fully insulated, Tyvec'ed and so on. I now have the other two sides to deal with and there's a lot of surface area. I figure to do the doors and the insulation, I'm looking around $8-13K right now, to include the attic(s) as fiberglass is more expensive, but I don't like cellulose, particularly the way it settles over time with the resultant R-factor loss... I plan to do it once and do it right. In the mean time, I have plenty of wood and have some options for stoves. The P.E. stove isn't bad, I just expected more out of it, when compared to older Ashleys, and Wonderwoods.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Don,
> I might try the damper idea. I WILL do the insulation, but I don't have $8-14K burning a hole in my pocket right now. The West side add-on, was only partially insulated and the original part, *literally had the siding, (new vinyl BTW) screwed to the studs, with sheetrock on the other side.* We discovered this when the insurance contractor took some of the siding off of the West side, after a tornado and he and I stood there speechless for a few minutes. Needless to say the affected West and North side now are fully insulated, Tyvec'ed and so on. I now have the other two sides to deal with and there's a lot of surface area. I figure to do the doors and the insulation, I'm looking around $8-13K right now, to include the attic(s) as fiberglass is more expensive, but I don't like cellulose, particularly the way it settles over time with the resultant R-factor loss... I plan to do it once and do it right. In the mean time, I have plenty of wood and have some options for stoves. The P.E. stove isn't bad, I just expected more out of it, when compared to older Ashleys, and Wonderwoods.


Bryan, that is the craziest thing I think I've ever read! Wow!


----------



## CTYank (Jan 6, 2014)

Been using a non-cat cast-iron Morso and loving the efficiency, now in its 13th season. I'd NEVER run a woodstove with secondary combustion, with secondary air turned off. Never. You're tossing away a lot of energy as super-nasty stuff up the flue.

If you've a couple of big ones to invest, take a look at Woodstock's "Hybrid" stove- can be operated as cat or non-cat very cleanly, with high efficiency over a very wide output range. Just don't plan on taking it up many stairs- lots of soapstone. Truly a thing of beauty.

If you want a water heater on a woodstove, research [steam boiler explosion]. Honest. Can be deadly.

www - woodstove - com


----------



## dustytools (Jan 6, 2014)

My experience so far with my new PE Super 27 is this, I too experience the large amount of coals after burning and reloading during the night, however, I find it true that if you rake them forward in the morning and place a small split in the stove it generally takes care of them. My biggest concern at this point is the burn times, seems like its only a few hours until I am to the point to where I have to rake the coals forward and burn them down. This hasn't been a real problem for me because I am up several times through the night taking a leak and whatnot. This could be because of my lack of experience with this new stove and maybe with time I can get better with it. My previous stove was a VC Vigilant smoke dragon which also did a good job of heating our home. The thing about this stove was that it was too big for its intended purpose and I had to keep her shut down 90 percent of the time just to keep from running us outta the house, which created tons of creosote and had me on the roof every week or two scrubbing pipes. We live in a very well insulated double-wide trailer with fair to middlin windows. With all of this being said I am glad that we did decide to replace the old smoker with the new stove. It heats just as good as the old one and doesn't seem to burn any more or less wood at this point however I aint never been the kind to measure wood usage. The biggest plus for me with the new stove is that I go to bed at night and don't have to worry about the amount of creosote in the pipes. I have cleaned the flue twice already this year and there hasn't been enough stuff in there to even warrant setting up the ladder but atleast now I know. I am inclined to agree with whoever it was that said that there are trade-offs when using one stove or the other. There probably aint one perfect stove that will serve the needs of everybody. Stay warm fellas!!


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

CTYank said:


> Been using a non-cat cast-iron Morso and loving the efficiency, now in its 13th season*. I'd NEVER run a woodstove with secondary combustion, with secondary air turned off. Never.* You're tossing away a lot of energy as super-nasty stuff up the flue.


You might if your stove was cranking out too much heat for your house? And the stove operated just fine without it...
After 6 years I started doin it. Secondary air is on right now though!


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

sunfish said:


> You might if your stove was cranking out too much heat for your house? And the stove operated just fine without it...
> After 6 years I started doin it. Secondary air is on right now though!


I need to add that this wont work with all stoves, but is fine with the Jotul F118CB. It's a box stove with a secondary burn chamber above the baffle, no internal damper, or anything to redirect gases. When it's burning hot, it gets a secondary burn without the air from the tubes. Never smokes out the chimney once burning well... 60,000 BTU takes 24" wood.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

That might be perfect as a secondary one for me on the far side of the house...


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 6, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> That's a simple answer... Because the EPA regulations are not, and have never been intended to reduce fuel usage, increase heat output or heating efficiency. The sole, single purpose intent, or goal, of those regulations is, and always has been to reduce emissions... nothing more, and nothing less. It is stated over and over... it's about emissions... it's all about what's come from the stack. But the BTU output is measured... remember my example in the other thread for the Spectrum?? (I'm adding burn time for this example)
> 
> Efficiency - 81.6%
> Heat Output (EPA) -36,600 BTU
> ...



Chew on this Spidey - you yourself just recently posted their test wood - cribbed together softwood 2x4 and 4x4 lumber. 

At 15Mbtu/cord for white pine, and 26Mbtu/cord for red oak according to the UNeb chart I've got, that ain't quite double, but with nice square splits of proper size to fill the firebox, double is physically possible. Is it practical - no, cordwood generally doesn't come that even - but it is possible.

As far as only caring about emissions, that's likely true, but as the stove co. guys have argued for years, there needs to be an allowance for the amount of work (heat delivered) being done. It's simple really, and even at least one roundhead at EEEPAW gets it, as there are different emissions limits for different sizes of diesel engines.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

CTYank said:


> *I'd NEVER run a woodstove with secondary combustion, with secondary air turned off. Never. You're tossing away a lot of energy as super-nasty stuff up the flue.*


There's that "blanket statement" BS again.
And "super-nasty stuff" my achin' butt‼



sunfish said:


> *When it's burning hot, it gets a secondary burn without the air from the tubes. Never smokes out the chimney...*


Amazing... simply amazing‼ Secondary combustion without secondary air?? Amazing‼ 

My "smoke dragon" furnace *does not smoke* when it's running properly... and it has no "secondary" air of any sort.

And the really nice thing about it is... when temperatures are "warmish"... ya' simply use smaller fuel loads. In an "old" technology firebox the "amount" of fuel as less to do with length of burn (or burn time) and more to do with heat output. Running smaller loads, at hotter temps, keeps them burning clean while reducing heat output... yet, does not significantly affect the time between reloads. The same cannot be said about the "new" technology... smaller loads reduce burn time, yet, do not significantly reduce output. The "waste" is all the excess, unneeded, unwanted heat being thrown from them at too high of a rate... something not "wasted" in "old" technology.

It really does come down to running them correctly... the "technology" has noting to do with it... and never has.
Put an idiot at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will be crap...
Put someone who knows what they're doing at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will *not* be crap.
*


----------



## oldspark (Jan 6, 2014)

We can go back on forth on this until the cows come home but the fact of the matter is there are statements etched in concrete that should not be allowed to cloud the issue.
One of them is as spidey says, secondary combustion happens when the fire is hot enough, the old stoves do not smoke at that point in time, not sure what the testing showed, some of tests are like pissing into the wind.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 6, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> The "waste" is all the excess, unneeded, unwanted heat being thrown from them at too high of a rate... something not "wasted" in "old" technology.
> 
> It really does come down to running them correctly... the "technology" has noting to do with it... and never has.
> Put an idiot at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will be crap...
> ...


Spidey, tell me again how you get less heat at the beginning of the cycle with the slam the door and walk away method? Like I said, wood burns on a curve, not linearly. It does it in an old stove, a new stove, a firepit, on a flat rock inside a cave, wherever. It-is-what-it-is, as you like to say.


----------



## mooseracing (Jan 6, 2014)

flotek said:


> You just rake them all toward the very front of the stove and toss a small thin slab on top then open your air intake to wide open and leave it for next few hours and enjoy the heat from those coals.proper technique on running these new stoves it goes a long way and avoids the concerns you have



That kind of worked on our Napoleon, doesn't work at all on the Englander, all you do is send the heat up the stack and get nothing usable.

When you get down to a bed of coals with a 200-300F stovetop, it's useless for heating a house from a single room. 

I'd like to see a primary air tube ran down the middle (off the bottom an inch or two) front to back so the entire bed of coals can get air. Then shutoff the secondary air.


----------



## Cerran (Jan 6, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> There's that "blanket statement" BS again.
> And "super-nasty stuff" my achin' butt‼
> 
> 
> ...



It's still easier with the newer stoves to achieve a more ideal burn with less than ideal conditions though. The old non-EPA units were more forgiving on the quality of wood but did put out more emissions per unit heat than the new stoves. 

It boils down to the physics and thermo-kinetics of combustion and fluid flow. When you add all the air in the primary combustion zone without the aid of a catalyst you get higher velocities and more carryover exiting the firebox even if you have a clean burn.

I have a friend who recently replaced a Fisher smoke dragon with a Kuma Sequoia stove and saw flue temperatures drop from the high 400's to around 305-315 under normal operations. He burned seasoned (cut and stacked for 1 year) Red Fir and Tamarack mix in both instances. He never had creosote issues with the old Fisher so he got a clean burn but it's obvious he's getting more heat out of the new stove versus the old one because of the stack temps. He's also seen a reduction in wood usage over the old stove of around 30% already.


----------



## flotek (Jan 6, 2014)

mooseracing said:


> That kind of worked on our Napoleon, doesn't work at all on the Englander, all you do is send the heat up the stack and get nothing usable.
> 
> When you get down to a bed of coals with a 200-300F stovetop, it's useless for heating a house from a single room.
> 
> I'd like to see a primary air tube ran down the middle (off the bottom an inch or two) front to back so the entire bed of coals can get air. Then shutoff the secondary air.



I have an englander nc 13 in my shop and for me it is same procedure of the coarse being a smaller firebox it doesn't have quite the same affect


----------



## flotek (Jan 6, 2014)

What a pointless argument to have. . It's like saying a new chainsaw is no better than a cross cut two man or saying a. 5 gallon pail is as good as indoor plumbing a campfire is as good as a microwave . A bike with a basket is as useful to get to work as a truck ..There are some advancements as time goes on that are plain to see as clear improvements . Fuel injection , natural gas. , indoor plumbing , internal combustion engines microwaves ect .. 
An epa or cat stove will make better use of the btu in the wood as long as its dry Instead of releasing all the energy at once it does it over a longer period of time and captures more of that energy and A smoke dragon is simply not going to get true secondary action


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> *Spidey, tell me again how you get less heat at the beginning of the cycle with the slam the door and walk away method? Like I said, wood burns on a curve...*


You're seeing it backwards... it ain't less heat at the beginning, it's more heat at the end.
The coal bed continues to heat at a higher rate when air flows up through it instead of over it... the "curve" is much less pronounced.



Cerran said:


> *It's still easier with the newer stoves to achieve a more ideal burn with less than ideal conditions though.*


Really?? What conditions?? How about the condition of wet wood?? Too much draft?? Cold chimney?? Short chimney?? Not enough draft?? Tall chimney?? 
Like I said... one ain't *automatically* better... you can not make blanket statements.



> *I have a friend who recently replaced a Fisher smoke dragon with a Kuma Sequoia stove and saw flue temperatures drop from the high 400's to around 305-315... it's obvious he's getting more heat... because of the stack temps.*


Why would that be obvious?? It sure ain't to me.
Those are two different appliances, variances are normal and to be expected.
Any number of dozens of things could contribute to the variance in stack temp... only a small few could equate to a *possible*... I'll say it again, *possible*... difference in heat output at the box. 



> *He's also seen a reduction in wood usage over the old stove of around 30% already.*


Really?? *WOW‼*
I'm not sure what you mean by "recently", but I'm assuming this fall... so he's been using it 2 or 3 months.
And after just a couple months he can say it uses 30% less wood?? Really?? WOW‼ That guy must count and record every stick of wood he stuffs in the firebox, the type of wood, and the temperature every time he does (and a whole bunch more stuff).

By-the-way... What size was the Fisher firebox?? What size is the Kuma firebox?? 
Don't bother answering... 'cause if you do I have another dozen or so sets to ask.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

flotek said:


> *What a pointless argument to have. . It's like saying a new chainsaw is no better than a cross cut two man...*



No... what you said is pointless.
We are comparing a woodstove to a woodstove... not a nuclear reactor to a woodstove.
Comparing one chainsaw to another chainsaw would be a comparable argument to a woodstove to a woodstove... but a chainsaw to a handsaw is a pointless as a nuclear reactor to a woodstove‼
*


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 6, 2014)

@Whitespider I don't think I read it wrong, you were specifically referring to the excess, WASTED, heat at the beginning of the cycle (which is where I inferred, based on context and your previous statements about the high heat output while the dreaded secondaries are doing their job, that you were pointing out)

Heat is not "wasted" until it leaves the home. If it leaves the home faster than you can replace it, you'll get cold. If it stays there longer, you might get uncomfortable unless you let some out.

Wood heat, in whatever form you use to produce it, is not completely conducive to the thermostatically controlled 2° difference in temperatures many are used to. Hot water systems that store the heat for later come pretty close, but at a substantial cost and added complexity. A big thermal mass russian fireplace could be argued the same way, but what happens when it's over fired, and the weather turns? Crackin the windows time until that mass cools off. Want 72 everywhere, every minute? Get on the bottle or plug in.


----------



## Cerran (Jan 6, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Really?? What conditions?? How about the condition of wet wood?? Too much draft?? Cold chimney?? Short chimney?? Not enough draft?? Tall chimney??
> Like I said... one ain't *automatically* better... you can not make blanket statements.



Actually a modern stove with the exception of wet wood will cope generally better with all of these conditions and get a cleaner burn.



> Why would that be obvious?? It sure ain't to me.
> Those are two different appliances, variances are normal and to be expected.
> Any number of dozens of things could contribute to the variance in stack temp... only a small few could equate to a *possible*... I'll say it again, *possible*... difference in heat output at the box.



Not true. For the same mass of wood into the firebox since the old stove and new stove have basically the same firebox volume, the variance of the stack temperature is more heat staying in the room and not going up the chimney. This is of course with a visual inspection of the lack of smoke coming from the chimney in both instances.



> Really?? *WOW‼*
> I'm not sure what you mean by "recently", but I'm assuming this fall... so he's been using it 2 or 3 months.
> And after just a couple months he can say it uses 30% less wood?? Really?? WOW‼ That guy must count and record every stick of wood he stuffs in the firebox, the type of wood, and the temperature every time he does (and a whole bunch more stuff).



Assuming a 5% variance on the wood he has stacked year in and year out and him pulling from the same pile for the past 10 years I think it's safe to trust him on the wood usage.

Additionally since we are both engineers, he has calculated the heating degree days this year versus last year and this is a colder year and he has still used ~30% less wood.

For 2012 Heating Degree Days Sept-Dec was 5067 (60 F Baseline) for 2013 it was 6179 for the same time period.

As for the type of wood, like I said it's a mix of Red Fir and Tamarack, but mostly Red Fir which is consistent with pretty much every other year considering we cut firewood together.



> By-the-way... What size was the Fisher firebox?? What size is the Kuma firebox??
> Don't bother answering... 'cause if you do I have another dozen or so sets to ask.



The new stove is 3.6 Cubic feet and the old is ~4 cubic feet.

Just because you can ask questions does not make you right.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 6, 2014)

I think the best way to compare the size or capacity of a stove is simply by the volume of the firebox - how much fuel it holds. I don't really pay much attention to the advertised BTU output (which are usually peak outputs). By that measure we end up with a lot of comparisons of much larger older stoves to smaller secondary combustion stoves, and people who are not satisfied. Efficiency is not a great term to use, as it is a measure of how well optimized some particular variable is relative to some other. One could speak of peak BTUs per volume of the stove, or minimum cumulative particulates for a given fuel load - it's just a ratio of one thing to another thing. Be sure you are looking at the variables that are important to you.

My stove supposedly has a 3.25 cu. ft. firebox. When I load it heavy and the secondary burn is going the output is fearsome. After the volatiles burn off and the secondary dies down the output is much reduced. I can open the air inlet and keep output up a bit higher if I want - I seldom do that as the stove has a large thermal mass around it, I don't care about holding a constant temp in the house and so I'm happy to let it coast down. Sometimes I'll throw in some poplar or sassafras splits - light wood that burns hot and fast and doesn't coal much - to get a secondary combustion going over the coal bed until the end of the cycle. 

If you need to keep the output up and add wood before the cycle is done then you have coals, but it is pretty easy to arrange them so they burn up in the next loading. If you're actually throwing coals out, then you are not really using that wood in the stove, you're disposing of it - it is not correct to count that wood in terms of how much you "used" in the stove to heat your house.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> @Whitespider Wood heat, in whatever form you use to produce it, is not completely conducive to the thermostatically controlled 2° difference in temperatures many are used to. Hot water systems that store the heat for later come pretty close, but at a substantial cost and added complexity. A big thermal mass russian fireplace could be argued the same way, but what happens when it's over fired, and the weather turns? Crackin the windows time until that mass cools off. Want 72 everywhere, every minute? Get on the bottle or plug in.


I am convinced this is the biggest issue; the one of expectations. A steady high temperature, even over time and location within the house, especially without a large thermal mass, is not a good match to wood heat. At least not without using a large amount of wood.


----------



## flotek (Jan 6, 2014)

My firebox on my epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger . My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller firebox and way cleaner and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling .that's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old unit and it held more wood . My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 in my 2,000 sq foot house


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm not gonna' address every post since my last one...
I'll make my point by addressing just the following one..


flotek said:


> *My firebox on my epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger . My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller firebox and way cleaner and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling .that's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old unit and it held more wood . My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 in my 2,000 sq foot house*



Guess what?
I'm gonna' take that above quote and make some minor changes to fit my home and its current setup...

My firebox on my *non-*epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger *than the EPA box I used last year*. My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller *larger *firebox and way cleaner *just as clean* and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling. That's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half *two-thirds* what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 *12* hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old *EPA* unit and it held more wood. My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero *-13°* out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 *72°* in my 2,000 *1500* sq foot house.

So how is it I can say virtually the same damn thing about going from an EPA box to a non-EPA, as you can say about going from a non-EPA box to an EPA box??
I'll tell you why...
Because it has nothing to do with the technology... NOTHING‼ It's a matter of using the proper tool for the intended purpose *and* running it correctly‼
You flat *can not* make the blanket statement that the "new" wood-burning technology is *automatically* more better‼
Only someone short-sighted (i.e., one of those "true" believers I was talking about) would do so... sometimes the cross-cut saw is a better choice than the rip saw, sometimes the maul is a better choice than the ax, sometimes the pocket knife is a better choice than the butcher knife... and sometimes everyone can be both right, and wrong at the same time. But when you speak in absolutes... I guaranty you'll be wrong a lot more than you'll be right.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 6, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> That's a simple answer... Because the EPA regulations are not, and have never been intended to reduce fuel usage, increase heat output or heating efficiency. The sole, single purpose intent, or goal, of those regulations is, and always has been to reduce emissions... nothing more, and nothing less. It is stated over and over... it's about emissions... it's all about what's come from the stack. But the BTU output is measured... remember my example in the other thread for the Spectrum?? (I'm adding burn time for this example)
> 
> Efficiency - 81.6%
> Heat Output (EPA) -36,600 BTU
> ...


Why do you assume these 4 specifications pertain to the same situation and that all must be met simultaneously and can be equated? When you look at the specs for a car and it lists max horsepower and max fuel economy, we're all pretty aware that you won't get both at the same time. The rating of some particular test done under some specific conditions might not relate directly to, say, max BTU output under some other conditions. That does not mean they are of no value in figuring out what to expect the unit to do.

I write performance specifications for our products, and our goal is to provide information that lets the user understand what they can expect from the product in use, but the various ratings may be under different conditions that are not directly related. Other vendors just write whatever the customer wants to hear, but at least with some standardized test they can't fudge the numbers so easily.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

*L-O-L ‼*
I just had'ta come back and post this... had'ta because of this thread...
Today has been one of the coldest we've seen in the last few years... I think the high was -13° with wind, putting windchill 'round -50° most all day.

I just walked in the house... my wife looks at me and says...
_"Why'd that guy sell that wood-burner?? It's friggin' awesome‼ The house has been 71-72° all day... it's the best one we've ever had‼"
_
Of course, she's only been around 4 of 'em... and never even touched the first... but...
Never argue with a woman boys... never with a woman... LOL
*


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Jotul stopped making Cat stoves about 20 years ago.


That long ago?


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

sunfish said:


> Bryan, that is the craziest thing I think I've ever read! Wow!



I guess I should clarify, the siding was attached to the stringers, which were then screwed to the studs with only air between them and the sheet rock, but it's all relative.

I did speak with my local Jotul dealer today. They want $1900 for the Black Bear. Now that I've got Mike's saw on the way have both German and Swedish engineering covered, I think it may be time to pick up some Norwegian ingenuity, (and a larger checking acct...).


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

flotek said:


> 3 hr burn time. ? Dang no wonder your looking at other options . I could toss some logs and cardboard boxes in my firepit in the backyard and get that . Concerning the heat swings : this is why when its mild you learn to use wood to your advantage . I like to use hemlock slabs ( we have slot of Amish sawmills around here ) so I don't get the house overheated . They take the chill off but don't build up a coal bed . Operator error can usually account for too heavy a coal bed . Its avoidable ..They usually come by reloading to frequently then guys don't realize how to burn them off . You just rake them all toward the very front of the stove and toss a small thin slab on top then open your air intake to wide open and leave it for next few hours and enjoy the heat from those coals.proper technique on running these new stoves it goes a long way and avoids the concerns you have



I should clarify, I don't expect 72 degrees +/- 3, but a bit more even or consistent heat cycle than every 1-2 hours with a large arc throughout the cycle. A more gradual arc, no removal of live coals and bit and another hour or two and I'd be happy as a pig in slop.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 6, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I bought a Jotul F3CB in 1994 and they had made the switch to high tech secondary combustion at that time. I heard the high temps in the cats had caused some warping problems.


Good to know, thanks.

I almost bought a F3CB, but got the larger F118CB instead. I think the 3 would be a better fit for our house. Or maybe the F400?


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 6, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I bought a Jotul F3CB in 1994 and they had made the switch to high tech secondary combustion at that time. I heard the high temps in the cats had caused some warping problems.


I have been afraid of cast Iron stoves for warping problems. I Guess you have to be careful not to over fire them, but the Jotuls must be one of the better stoves on the market.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

That was part of the reason I went with the P.E. was the fact that it was a steel firebox, (which heats a bit faster) wrapped in an old-fashioned cast-iron liner. I have noticed that outside temp seems to affect the coaling. The warmer it is, the less it coals, which to me is counter-intuitive as cooler air is more dense and better for combustion than warmer air, all else being equal. as long as it's above 20F I don't have near the coaling problem. It's only during snaps like this, that it really bites. I think the cast iron stove do a bit better with the temp swings than the steel stoves do, as they heat and cool faster than cast.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

It is nice when I can charge to do a tree removal and then either burn that wood, or sell it, depending on the species and quality... I like making money twice, legally for essentially the same job.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 6, 2014)

OK is spider and me the only ones with stove grates? My new to me old Riteway furnace has grates, but make more coals then any other stove I have ever burned. One would think that the air coming up through the gates would not create the coals. The coals are not a problem because the ash door can be opened and they produce crazy high temperatures. The fire box is huge so there is no way the coal build up impedes the addition of a fresh load. I certainly can not say this stove is efficient, but it will put out the BTUS.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

Some are designed with grates in mind and others aren't. I'm sure some knows the scientific reasoning behind this, but I don't and won't try to bs you.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

Lots of stoves have grates... not all stoves feed the combustion air under that grate.
Sometimes the grate is there only to facilitate the use of an ash drawer.
If the air isn't feed under the grate it isn't part of the "combustion system"... it's just part of the "ash removal" system.

In the case of my DAKA furnace... any and all air coming into the firebox is fed under the grate.
The box I had before the Spectrum was the same way... under the grate.
Dads old cast stove... under the grate.
When I use to build barrel stoves I would use a fireplace rack for a grate and place the combustion air intake lower than the rack (that's the purpose of a fireplace rack... to get air under the fire so it burns better/hotter/cleaner).

But, when you add a glass door and secondary burn... well... you're screwed‼
*
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 6, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *The grate is there for more than ash removal.*



No it ain't... if you get some combustion benefit from it that's a plus... but that ain't the design intent.
But believe whatever you choose.
*


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 6, 2014)

I will say that if the ash pan opening is covered up too much, or the drawer is full, it substantially hampers the burn, both temp and efficiency-wise. The door doesn't leak per-sea, but there is enough gap around the edges to allow a bit of airflow past them. I have to keep it dug out, or it coals up much worse. My other option as opposed to hauling the coals out once there isn't an active, visible-flame fire is to open the ash door a bit and burn the coals down that way, but I'm sure that goes against manf's recommendations.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 6, 2014)

Now, Del, you know Spidey was on Jotul's design team, otherwise he wouldn't go around making BLANKET STATEMENTS like that. He HAS to have firsthand knowledge.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 6, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Both my Jotuls have grates and ash pans.
> I've got a Riteway Model 37 with wood and coal grates sitting in the shop.
> 
> What Riteway do you have?


I have the little one in the old dairy barn, It is burnt out. We used it or years with a internal hot water tank. The new to us is the larger larger model, the only number I can see is B6. The new one must have 7 or 8 cu ft fire box,


----------



## sunfish (Jan 7, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I like to go big on free standing wood stove suggestions. For one, they take longer, larger wood. Second, you can let the house get cooler while you are gone and when you get home fire up that big stove and let 'er rip! I'm into super seasoning wood and always have been. Two years or longer and even large pieces light up and burn well. We've been burning nothing but pine this year in our F600cb and the splits are 23inches X about six inches, seasoned two years. All of our firewood is from trees I charge people to remove in out tree business.


I agree with everything except "go big". 1200 sq feet of well insulated house here. No way in hell I could run a F600CB!


----------



## sunfish (Jan 7, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Well I didn't mean that big!
> 
> 
> 
> .


If our house were larger, I'd not even consider replacing the 118CB. Fantastic stove!
I think a Jotul F400CB is the next one. The 118CB I have now will work real nice in the shop.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 7, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *I can see a difference… Even though air in not fed from under the grate the grate still affects combustion. ... The grate is there for more than ash removal. … main air enters the firebox right near grate level, it looks like some of the heavy cool input air drops through the grate and comes up under the burning logs.*





Steve NW WI said:


> *Now, Del, you know Spidey was on Jotul's design team, otherwise he wouldn't go around making BLANKET STATEMENTS like that. He HAS to have firsthand knowledge.*


OK… I wasn't on the design team, and I retract the “BLANKET STATEMENT”.
But let’s take a couple minutes to analyze what Del_ is saying.

No doubt some air gets under the fire during the flame stage… not just because it’s heavier/cooler, also because the fire creates a draft. Really though, air under the grate ain’t needed during the flame stage… there’s plenty of air gaps at the ends and between the logs. It’s been my experience that air fed under the grate is needed (or beneficial) during the coaling stage. So what happens when the fire collapses into coals and covers the grate?? No matter how hard I think about it I can’t see air being pulled down through a bed of coals without some sort of mechanical aid… it goes against everything I know about physics. So now we have to ask the question (or at least I do)… why would someone design a grate system to allow air under the fire when it ain’t really needed, and not allow air under when most needed (or at least significantly reduce it)?? Well… to me… the obvious answer is because the design intent was not to feed air under the fire. Let’s call it the Whitespider Grate Theory and see if we can find any evidence to support it.



Eric Modell said:


> *My … furnace has grates, but make more coals then any other stove I have ever burned. …not a problem because the ash door can be opened and they produce crazy high temperatures.*





Locust Cutter said:


> *My other option as opposed to hauling the coals out once there isn't an active, visible-flame fire is to open the ash door a bit and burn the coals down that way…*


So even though there is a grate (without air fed under it), the box builds too many coals…
Opening the ash door feeds air under the grate, burns the coals at a higher rate, and produces “crazy high temperatures”… which falls right in line with the Whitespider Grate Theory.

Well… theory ain’t fact… and a couple quotes don’t make it fact either… but… I can tell you this…

When I open the feed door on my furnace with a bed of coals on the grate I have to close the air intake gate or my eyebrows will disappear in a flash, closing that gate significantly reduces heat near instantly (even with the door wide open and dumping massive amounts of air into the box). Adding wood to the firebox on a relatively clean grate makes zero difference if the intake gate is open or closed, as long as the feed door is open… which is exactly how the (no grate) Spectrum worked. I don’t do it that way, but my wife sometimes likes to sit and watch until the fire gets too hot to leave the door open any longer (yeah, she’s a firebug).
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 7, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *No doubt Jotul has no idea this is happening and just got lucky.*



Yup... no doubt.
And I'm also bettin' they don't get near as lucky when the stove is used north of the Mason-Dixon... but that's just a bet.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 7, 2014)

Now that there was just flat mean‼
*


----------



## unclemoustache (Jan 7, 2014)

Well, 6 pages of great info and lots of discussion, but I'm not sure the question has been answered. Spidey keeps talking about conditions and proper usage, while others talk about technology.
For those of us who don't know as much about either, we don't really know what to think, and some of us with fewer brain cells prefer to leave the discussion to the engineers and simply want to know what watch to buy - not the different methods of watch design and construction. 

I've been following this thread closely since I have the same question so I'll repeat the OP:

In a large drafty house with little insulation (quit moaning about the importance of insulation! That's beyond my means for now and in the forseeable future), what stove type would be recommended for a guy who doesn't always have perfectly seasoned wood? What features should we look for and/or avoid? Cat? Secondary Burn? Large fire box? Glass door? Grate? Top loader? Cast iron? Steel? Soapstone? etc??


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 8, 2014)

unclemoustache said:


> Well, 6 pages of great info and lots of discussion, but I'm not sure the question has been answered. Spidey keeps talking about conditions and proper usage, while others talk about technology.
> For those of us who don't know as much about either, we don't really know what to think, and some of us with fewer brain cells prefer to leave the discussion to the engineers and simply want to know what watch to buy - not the different methods of watch design and construction.
> 
> I've been following this thread closely since I have the same question so I'll repeat the OP:
> ...


Answer: Your situation, the best would probably be a steel add on furnace with no cat or sec. burn( they like seasoned wood ) with a large firebox. Whew that was easy, I think.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Jan 8, 2014)

unclemoustache said:


> Well, 6 pages of great info and lots of discussion, but I'm not sure the question has been answered. Spidey keeps talking about conditions and proper usage, while others talk about technology.
> For those of us who don't know as much about either, we don't really know what to think, and some of us with fewer brain cells prefer to leave the discussion to the engineers and simply want to know what watch to buy - not the different methods of watch design and construction.
> 
> I've been following this thread closely since I have the same question so I'll repeat the OP:
> ...


 
How is it heated now - or how was it heated in the past?


----------



## oldspark (Jan 8, 2014)

unclemoustache said:


> Well, 6 pages of great info and lots of discussion, but I'm not sure the question has been answered. Spidey keeps talking about conditions and proper usage, while others talk about technology.
> For those of us who don't know as much about either, we don't really know what to think, and some of us with fewer brain cells prefer to leave the discussion to the engineers and simply want to know what watch to buy - not the different methods of watch design and construction.
> 
> I've been following this thread closely since I have the same question so I'll repeat the OP:
> ...


That's easy to answer, an older pre EPA stove with a large fire box and a baffle.
Easier on the pocket book also.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 8, 2014)

Or a new version thereof, like a Wonderwood, or similarly durable, effective design. Possibly two if you have enough area to heat and are trying to heat off of wood only. An old style OWB would also be a great consideration.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 8, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> I have two old stoves and a house with air leaks, bad windows, and a new addition without insulation yet. I have been reading on the other sight how great these modern stoves are, but there are a few here that do not agree. Our main stove that we have been burning for over twenty five years is a Earth stove without grates works great. Spider please make a comment on no grates air on top no problems with wet green wood. Our new stove is a Riteway furnace that is a hybrid down drafter with grates makes lots of coals. We have only been burning it for few weeks and have a lot to learn about it. WE did burn a smaller Riteway for over ten years.


 

let's just cut right to the chase. the only reason these new downdraft, cat, recirc, etc. stoves are being sold and pushed now, is EPA keeps cutting the particulate limit on new stoves. these stoves are NOT easy to fire. if you live in an area that isn't heavily regulated and enforced, keep your old stove. fix the draft leaks in the house, windows, get the insulation installed, and tune up the old stove. just like engines in cars with cubic inches, there's no replacement for displacement. get a wood stove with a big firebox and smoke shelf in it, to slow down the flue gas and extract maximum heat, and you'll be warm. use a manual pipe damper in the chimney pipe and that will keep more heat in the house and stove. my in-laws heated since the 1970's with a Franklin wood stove and to date I've never seen anything throw heat like that thing with a full firebox of hardwood, the draft knobs CLOSED, and the pipe damper closed. it would bake you out of the house being located in the basement, and this house has 3 floors total. they just recently switched to coal because now, wood is more expensive, and everyone is either too busy, or too old, to find and cut/split/stack/process 6-8 cords of wood/year for that household. with coal at $200/ton and wood at $150/cord, and 2 cords of wood needed to equal one ton of coal, coal has become cheaper.

if you "must" go with a new stove guess what, there's a limited list of ones that will pass the new emission laws, so the EPA is going to make most of the choices for you. If you can afford it, get a Blaze King. I'd steer away from a recirc or cat stove, because when the cat comb or recirc block cracks or burns out of it, they cost $400-$600 to replace.

it's a damned shame too because an old used stove is $100, sometimes free, but they're well on their way to outlawing them. we are going to have smoke police going around checking chimneys and issuing fines, they are already beginning to do it in some areas on the West Coast.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 8, 2014)

oldspark said:


> That's easy to answer, an older pre EPA stove with a large fire box and a baffle.
> Easier on the pocket book also.


 

that's the short answer !!! yes, agreed, correct. add a manual pipe damper and it will heat. 
the downdraft stoves work when they want to.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 8, 2014)

For new stoves I like non-cat (don't want to have a consumable in the stove). I also don't want refractory that will need replacing later (done that). I don't want an internal damper that redirects gases that has a gasket (done that and it was a PITA). I want cast iron, glass widow & easy to use. This is why I went with Jotul.


----------



## flotek (Jan 8, 2014)

Speaking of jotul IMHO a jotul Oslo is the most beautiful wood stove I have ever seen . It is exactly the way a stove oughta look ..classic good aesthetics with arc window inlay and secondary burns giving a fire show. .


----------



## naturelover (Jan 8, 2014)

My Englander 30 is just as easy to start as my old WM 520. 

Given the choice, I'd choose the 30 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. 

However, dry, seasoned wood is a must and I'm trying to catch up on that for next year. 

That is my fault though, not a fault of the stove. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 8, 2014)

Hard to fire? I call BS, and I'll prove it later this week when it warms up enough to let mine out.

Last year, not long before I put this stove in, I had a thread: http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/fast-fire-challenge.213635/ I had the old Woodchuck up and burning in 45 seconds. (Sorry for the missing pics, video is still on my youtube though, and I'll fix the link to it later.) No reason whatsoever to believe I can't duplicate it with the new Drolet.

It ain't rocket science, brain surgery, magic, or voodoo. You just gotta be slightly smarter than the blocks of wood you're trying to light.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> My Jotul F600CB is easy to fire.
> 
> I don't know of any downdraft designed modern stoves. Downdraft design is an old concept that increases efficiency by not letting the exhaust out of the top of the firebox but instead making the exhaust exit low in the box forcing the gasses close to the hot coal bed. My Riteway Model 37 is an example.
> 
> I've got two EPA Jotul woodstoves and they both work really well.


The Vermont Castings Resolute Acclaim we had (late 90s') was a down draft. Gases exited the back of the firebox down at the grate. Burned the load from the bottom. When it worked, it worked very well! When it acted up, it was a royal PITA!!! Any gases get above the wood and it would ignite and blow smoke into the house. If the gasket on the internal damper wasn't completely sealed it was a problem and it was a constant problem. Stove could not be run low & slow either. Like the Jotul MUCH better!!!


----------



## flotek (Jan 8, 2014)

If you have the right stove your not going to have to start fires over and over playing Boy Scout because you'll have coals left I. From the last load you burned to light off the new charge . It seems like my drolet never is without a bed of coals Sometime think I could vacation in Bermuda for a week and come back to a glowing coal bed . My non epa englander was always stop and start . Prime the flue with a ball of flaming newspaper ..Get out your kindling get some fire starters matches build a three story tepee get out your bellows dance around in a circle on one leg and repeat magic words .. Now I just toss wood on the coals and close the door the furnace does the rest if it wants more air it will open its own intake and do its dang SElf ...now if I figure out how to make my gmc hd pump its own gas


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 8, 2014)

unclemoustache said:


> Well, 6 pages of great info and lots of discussion, but I'm not sure the question has been answered. Spidey keeps talking about conditions and proper usage, while others talk about technology.
> For those of us who don't know as much about either, we don't really know what to think, and some of us with fewer brain cells prefer to leave the discussion to the engineers and simply want to know what watch to buy - not the different methods of watch design and construction.
> 
> I've been following this thread closely since I have the same question so I'll repeat the OP:
> ...



In that situation you'll need the biggest firebox smoke dragon you can find and a lot of wood to fuel it. And some good chimney sweeping tools.



davidbradley360 said:


> let's just cut right to the chase. the only reason these new downdraft, cat, recirc, etc. stoves are being sold and pushed now, is EPA keeps cutting the particulate limit on new stoves. these stoves are NOT easy to fire.
> 
> it's a damned shame too because an old used stove is $100, sometimes free, but they're well on their way to outlawing them. we are going to have smoke police going around checking chimneys and issuing fines, they are already beginning to do it in some areas on the West Coast.


Both my "EPA" stoves are trivially easy to fire if you know how to arrange the wood, and frustrating enough to make you scream if you don't. And as someone in one of these threads pointed out, there is precious little useful information about actually operating one in the literature provided. But it is not hard to figure out once you know how the air moves through the stove. 

Could you provide a reference to outlawing used stoves? I have not seen anything like that.


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 8, 2014)

david bradley360,
My secondary burn PE stove is not hard to fire, it is quite the opposite. Probably the easiest one to light and fire that I have ever run.......if you have dry wood. Water wont light or burn well. I hardly ever need to relight once the heating season starts, because it will retain a few coals for a long time, just add wood and its going again.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 8, 2014)

Geezzzzz... I've never had any problem lighting any of 'em... some just require a larger squirt from the bottle.

Still, (and it pains me dearly ) I have to admit, the one-and-only EPA box I've ever owned was the easiest of 'em all to light from a cold, dead start... a tablespoon was all it took.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> There was a small Riteway, the Model 2000 if I remember correctly. My Riteway Model 37 I bought new in 1978. It has a 7.5 cu. ft. firebox and a 1gal stainless steel water tank inside. You might want to rescue that stainless tank as it is quite valuable.


Ok I have the 37 I thought it had about 7 cu ft. box. The hot water tank will never be sold and we now we have this big stove there has been talk about installing it. Thanks for the information on my new stove. We bought are old Riteway about the same time. Would you call the cast camber an early attempt on secondary combustion?


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Hearing over and over about people that want wood stoves that burn unseasoned wood well is a lot like........
> 
> 
> .............wanting a car that runs well on gasoline with water in it.
> ...


Del It is not that we do not want to burn seasoned wood , but some times the bank account is what it is. In the olden days I cut a lot of wood , but after you sell a hundred rick all I had left was green. Now we are raising some grand children and 97 year old grandma moved in with us, her old farm house, we do not always have time to gather fire wood ahead of time. When I was laid off we had years of wood stacked but now times are more like they were many moons ago.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> My Riteway 37 had secondary air input about six inches above the the exhaust open at the bottom of the stove. It was adjustable and it was true secondary combustion, not just an attempt. In 1980 I added a factory bought catalytic combustor kit and added a viewing port so the combustor could be viewed. On the air input flap that is controled by the bi-metal coil I mounted a wedge of sheet metal that could be slid under the flap so I could set minimum burn levels. Riteway was suggesting using a paper clip on the flat which I did for a year or so but wanted to make it adjustable. This Riteway also heated domestic hot water via a one gallon stainless steel tank inside in the firebox. I was heating an 80 gallon electric hot water heater(was not hooked up to electric.) when then fed into the cold water input of a 30 gallon natural gas hot water heater. The domestic hot water was a totally passive system. Worked great. The Riteway model 37 is a large, ugly steel box but really kicks out the btu's!
> 
> .


Come on Del ugly is in the eye of the beholder. My 37 showed up about 5 years ago, for free. Free looks good to me. Hey Spidey the stove was hauled to me out of Iowa, so it can not be all bad


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 8, 2014)

sunfish said:


> The Vermont Castings Resolute Acclaim we had (late 90s') was a down draft. Gases exited the back of the firebox down at the grate. Burned the load from the bottom. When it worked, it worked very well! When it acted up, it was a royal PITA!!! Any gases get above the wood and it would ignite and blow smoke into the house. If the gasket on the internal damper wasn't completely sealed it was a problem and it was a constant problem. Stove could not be run low & slow either. Like the Jotul MUCH better!!!


So down drafers are good when they work.


Chris-PA said:


> In that situation you'll need the biggest firebox smoke dragon you can find and a lot of wood to fuel it. And some good chimney sweeping tools.
> My chimney s always clean.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 8, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> So down drafers are good when they work.


The one I had was great when it worked. It burned the load from the bottom, instead of burning the whole load. Very efficient design. But after what I went through I sure don't want another...


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 8, 2014)

sunfish said:


> The one I had was great when it worked. It burned the load from the bottom, instead of burning the whole load. Very efficient design. But after what I went through I sure don't want another...


I have been intersted in rocket stoves a modern down drafted design that has not been capitalized on yet. If the air is pulled down more heat in the dwelling less up the stack. But more complicatet then some of the other designs.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 9, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> My chimney s always clean.


The chimney cleaning tools comment was in response to unclemoustache, who will need a high capacity and has wood that is not well seasoned. If you burn a large quantity of poorly seasoned wood it would make sense to keep up with chimney cleaning.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

the sidedraft and downdraft stoves can be a real PITA to get going. they require a very high flue temp for secondary combustion, around 500 F or higher. that's a very hot stovepipe and flue, because basically they are burning the smoke in the stovepipe and flue exit, not in the firebox. some of them take 2 hours to get up to speed and build a hot coal bed, so they can kick into sidedraft mode. the Riteway wasn't really a downdraft stove, it was a sidedraft. the inlet air came in under the grates, came around the edges via the 2 louvers, one on each side, then moved through the base of the fire into the side exit, then up and out. on the way out it was hit with secondary air from the fixed drilled orifices on the side. here's a writeup on just how laborious one of these stoves can be to fire. most people don't have this much time just to fire their stove. if you have to load up, dampen, then jump in your car and go to work, I'm doubtful these are a good idea. notice how the writer wakes up the next day and the stove is at 200 degrees. then he has to start the process all over again of building coals. to me the key would be, a stove that can build coals quickly and be switched over to cross draft mode, and hold that mode for 10-12 hours, that would be the one to try. but personally I'd rather just burn the wood in the box ?

http://www.**********/talk/wiki/downdraft-stove-operation/

*Downdraft Stove Operation*
Apr 19, 2013


li" data-history="on">
Page
Attachments (1)
Downdraft Stove Operation

*Burning the newer Downdraft (base burning) - Type Wood Stoves*

*Definition:* A wood stove which draws the smoke and exhaust DOWN through the burning load and embers in an attempt to extract as much heat as possible from the gases in the wood. Also sometimes called downdraft, cross draft and base burning.

Downdraft wood stoves have been around for hundreds of years, and even Ben Franklins orginal design tried to bring the smoke back down through the embers in order to burn more efficienctly. In fact, patent #86,074 from 1869, shows an extremely well developed base burning model with most all of the features in place.

But most of this technology was forgotten as wood burning stoves were junked in favor of coal and then oil/gas heating.

The mid -1970's saw a resurgence of wood burning, and with the new stove companies sought out designs which would provide high efficiency and reduced creosote and smoke (pollution) production. A company called Riteway came to market with a number of utilitarian models which used downdraft design. These were well received in the marketplace, but became a victim of cheap oil in the 1980's.
http://www.**********/talk/attachments/ritewayexample-jpg.100094/ 
Pictured above are two designs separated by approx. 100 years!

In 1988, Vermont Castings reintroduced a downdraft stove called the Resolute Acclaim. This stove was created in order to meet the new EPA clean burning standards which required that any newly manufactured stove meet certain emission guidelines.
http://**********/images/uploads/acclaim.jpg Cutaway drawing of Resolute Acclaim combustion system shown above - note - this drawing is from US Patent Office files, with some added color for explanation.

With the renewed interest in wood burning following the turn of the millenium, a number of new models with similar combustion systems have recently entered the market. These include, but are not limited to:
1. Vermont Castings Non-catalytic Encore and Defiant
2. Lopi Leyden
3. Avalon Arbor
4. Harman Oakwood
5. Certain Dutchwest Non-Catalytic cast iron models (Model 2479, etc.)

Although ********** has some articles on starting and tending a wood fire, these do not specifically address the proper starting and burning of downdraft-type unit. Here are links to the aforementioned articles:
Starting a Wood Fire - http://www.**********/econtent/index.php/articles/start_a_wood_fire
Tending a Wood Fire - http://www.**********/econtent/index.php/articles/tending_a_wood_fire

Ok, now onward to the operation of a downdraft stove.

Short summary - as you can see in the drawing of the Resolute Acclaim, these stove depend on having a large bed of hot red embers in order to function. This often required burning though a good part (or all) of the first load of wood in order to establish this "critical mass". Typical operation in such a stove is:
1. Burn first load mostly with bypass and air inlets open to warm chimney, stove and establish bed of embers.
2. Add wood, close bypass and adjust output once you are familiar with your stove and chimney combination
3. When the load has burned down to red coals, open the bypass, add wood, and then close the bypass and adjust air

Here are suggestions from our forum members who are using these stoves

Here is the procedure that I follow when my stove (Dutchwest 2479 ) is up to temp and needs to be reloaded:

1) Open bypass
2) poke residual logs to collapse into coals (if necessary). Needs a good 2+ of coals, so plan accordingly
3) load fresh splits (see note below on orientation)
4) open air inlet 100% for about 10-15 minutes or until fire is very active (about 475 on the flu connector magnetic thermometer)
5) Damper down to about 1/3 air and let burn for another 10 minutes. This reduces wasteful burning that is just rocketing right up the chimney, but is necessary to pre-heat the new splits on the top
6) Open air inlet to 100% again for about 2 minutes to get an active fire again
7) Close bypass/engage downdraft.
8) If rumble persists, temps are good, smoke-free at the top of the stack, I Damper down to about 3/4 then 1/2 then 1/4.

If the stove stalls, it means that the coals weren't oriented right, there werent enough of them, or the fresh splits were ready for that stage yet. All the above assumes dry, seasoned hardwood. Also, I have a thick masonry chimney which has to be properly heated before it drafts well enough to use the downdraft combustion sytem. This takes about 2 hours in my set up.

Also, when the drafting is good and outdoor temps are low, lately Ive been experimenting with the following to reduce thermonuclear incidents. A freshly loaded stove holds about 6 medium sized splits on top of the coal bed. I have been putting two less-seasoned splits on the top row. That way they bake for a while and dry out before the splits below them reduce to coals.

*Orienting the splits.......*

When I add new splits, I create a small pocket in front of/ above the throat entrance to the reburning chamber. Split-size willing, I do this often by resting a split on the flat, top section of the block that houses the throat. When that split and the ones around it eventually reduce to coals, it falls into place on its own. For some reason, creating that pocket seems to help. Maybe it allows the air to not have to travel across cooler splits that have not completely caught yet, therefore making it more hot before it enters the throat.

*In the morning*

In the morning there are still coals remaining, but not the 2-3 required to jump right back into the downdraft process. Also the stove has dropped to about 200 degrees (surface), which isnt hot enough. But the stack is still warm and the draft is moderately strong, so after loading with fresh splits it is only a few minutes before the fire is roaring again. However, it does take a while to rebuild the thick bed of coals necessary.

So in the morning, the procedure is similar but different and goes something like:

1) open bypass and reload about 1/2 way with small diameter splits (2-3") and open up air inlet all the way
2) make big pot of coffee
3) once the splits are about halfway to coals, jumble them w/ the poker to break off some coals and build up the coal bed
4) completely load the firebox as normal, finish the pot of coffee, and revert to the previous posted steps and enjoy.

Every fire is different based on the fuel & weather conditions, but its a procedure that seems to work often enough. So the morning procedure takes about an hour before the combustion system is ready to go again, which is less than half the time it takes starting a cold stove/stack.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

here are a few vids on Harman's Firedome technology. it's basically a perfected Riteway system using a lot better materials, and ceramic combustor, special bricks, etc. but the principle is the same. it sidedraft exits the smoke into a combustion chamber and hits it with secondary air. the problem I have with these stoves is, the stovepipe and flue temps are very high. the risk of a chimney fire is great. I know a guy who lost a beautiful custom built home using a wood burning furnace of different make but a similar design, it was wood gasification. the stovepipe going to the chimney caught the side of the house on fire, and it was far away but still caught it on fire. one false move with these stoves and it can cost you dearly due to the flue temps they run at. it's not something I'd want to leave at home unattended for 12 hours. that and they rely on a thick bed of red coals to operate as designed. lose that coal bed and secondary combustion stops.

adding these features makes it legal to sell the stoves in USA. that doesn't mean every owner is going to actually use them. much like disconnecting the EGR, air pump, or CAT on a car- I'm sure a lot of guys will just burn the stove in primary combustion mode, as a conventional burner. the EPA can't stand there 24/7 and dictate to everyone when the stove is switched to secondary mode. so you have to read the lines, then read between the lines, so to speak. same thing goes for the dual fuel coal/wood stoves, that are no longer legal for wood. people will still burn wood in them.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I used a Riteway Model 37 for over 15 years and it was never hard to light!
> 
> I could light it off and walk away from it after five minutes.
> 
> ...



many people have problems with those stoves. they aren't airtight. the main body is thin sheetmetal, not steel plate. I have a Riteway 37 and it's warped badly. the posts I just put up are from hearth dot com and they are a specialty wood burning site. shining a flashlight down the combustion flue on my Riteway 37, I can see slits of light down in the inlet valve damper area- meaning those passages will leak into each other, intake into exhaust and vice versa. the intake draft leaks all around the 2 slanted bricks in the base of combustion flue, they are not sealed. sure you can start it up and close the damper and walk away, but is it going into secondary combustion as designed ? that requires a flue temp of 450 F. If not, then it's just burning it like a big old fashioned wood stove anyway. there's no secondary combustion, just side outlet. there are loads of reports about that design not functioning well all the time. I like the big capacity firebox, but the thin sides are a definite neg. the firebricks are the only thing that gives it any structure or beef. I can post many references here supporting this but do we really have to go there.

here is the side of my Riteway, notice how it's warped. the sides are about as thick as a 55 gallon drum, or less. by comparison my Harman is 1/4" thick hardened steel plate welded, and will last a few centuries. having said this I like the Riteway for what it was and is. we're going to use it to heat an outbuilding. it would also make a good basement or cabin/cottage stove. but I would not want that in my living room. the sides are too thin and intuition tells me it may be a fire hazard.

before using it, I'm going to seal all the gaps between the firebricks with refractory and furnace cement, especially the combustion flue bricks. yesterday I took apart the thermostat and repaired that, the wheel inside was crooked and not working smoothly. these are old stoves now, they need service. I may add spinner draft controls on the secondary flue side, and on the firebox door, so above fire and secondary is fine adjustable.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Why would the stove pipe and flue temperatures be any higher than any catalytic or high tech secondary air woodstove? All catalytic stoves by design have the catalytic combustor placed after the gasses leave the firebox. Another BTW, I never once had secondary combustion stop in my Model 37 after the fire caught on. If catalytic combustion had stopped the cat would have become plugged, and smoke would have entered the house. It never happened, not even once. Both of my Riteway catalytic combustor are ceramic, right from the factory.



if the temps drop, the secondary combustion stops in the flue. flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove. if it drops, that's not going to instantly presto block the cat. it will just smoke out the chimney. the Riteway didn't even have an airtight inlet/outlet design. it was a very cheaply made stove. I have one and have it apart. all these gaps around the flue bricks, leak air into the inlet damper area below it. seriously you can't think this was good ? these stoves were just slapped together.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

Del_ said:


> And BTW, Riteway folded up after the owner died in a plane crash. I don't believe the plane crashed due to low oil prices!
> .



I was under the impression the company was sold first. but I remember clearly, in the 1980's everyone getting rid of their wood burners. fuel prices stabilized and even came down a lot. I passed on a pile of free stoves that people were getting rid of. we used to scrap them like crazy, no one wanted them. now everyone is switching to coal. wood has become more expensive than coal. I load my coal stove and can leave the house for 2 days, and when I return it's still burning. long burn times are easy with coal. wood is getting harder to get for free, unless you own standing timber. then again that's not really free, cuz then the owner is paying the property taxes on the land. they have all the angles covered.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

the Riteway when first produced, had no cat. They only started putting that in very late in the company's life, around 1982. Why would you even want a cat ? The original stove design worked by simply injecting secondary air into the exhaust stream half way up the stove, from the mid-flue level. 

in my area of the northeast, our stoves are not regulated locally by any ordinances. we can burn a 100 year old stove direct draft with just a manual pipe damper, if we want. totally legal, for now. who in their right mind would add a cat to it ?

Why in the heck would you even want a cat or recirc stove ? the only reason I can see having one, is if it's mandated by law and would result in fines. IMHO it's like putting a cat and EGR on a 1957 Chevy. didn't have it originally, and not worth installing.

read this page, most of it is complaints. some people have replaced cats 4x in their stove at $360 each. link below is an entire page of mostly cat complaints

http://chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm


----------



## oldspark (Jan 9, 2014)

"flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove"
Well mine sure was but a cat stove has low flue temps does it not.
You see all sorts of posts about the new stoves cat or not cat and having lower flue temps but that was never the case with my Summit.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 9, 2014)

Del - a little clarifying on your thickness posts. I work with steel all day, so I thought I'd help the average joe out with gauge/thickness conversion - 18ga is .048" thick, 14ga=.074", 10ga=.134". Like in shotgun sizes, gauge thickness isn't linear.




oldspark said:


> "flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove"
> Well mine sure was but a cat stove has low flue temps does it not.
> You see all sorts of posts about the new stoves cat or not cat and having lower flue temps but that was never the case with my Summit.



Flue temperature isn't directly tied to the type of burn system, more so of the design of the stove and how much exhaust heat is transferred to the stove, and therefore the room, before it goes out the pipe. My old Woodchuck had basically a hole in the top of the back panel, with just a baffle to slow the gases - you could see the flames going up the pipe if you opened the door with a fire going. High flue temps - 700-800 was common. My new stove (Drolet) is secondary combustion, plus the smoke takes a trip across the length of the stove before it hits the stove pipe. Wound up tight, I might hit 700. On a nice hot average fire, it's 300-400 measured in approximately the same place.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 9, 2014)

Del_ said:


> The Cat in mine was a factory kit I bought and installed myself, so I have seen how the stove is built.
> 
> I wanted the Cat because of how Cats work, increasing efficiency and leaving a cleaner chimney. Mine worked fine and was $80. for a replacement cat back then. I bought a replacement only to find the original still worked fine, so I have two.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 9, 2014)

Davidbradly have you ever burned a Riteway? I have never experienced any of the problems you are expounding about. They are not the best built or most modern engineered stove, but my Ritewys have and do a good for me. I currently have two. What problems are you having with the secondary combustion? Like Dell said open if you are going to load wood. I keep it closed even if I am building a col bed, it starts faster and puts out more heat.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 11, 2014)

here is an interesting video. I would not wan to dish a couple g's for a new stove, that didn't heat. sure it may burn the wood efficiently, but that is only half the formula for net efficiency. the other half is heat transfer to the home. efficient combustion without heat transfer, means a cold house


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 11, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Davidbradly have you ever burned a Riteway? I have never experienced any of the problems you are expounding about. They are not the best built or most modern engineered stove, but my Ritewys have and do a good for me. I currently have two. What problems are you having with the secondary combustion? Like Dell said open if you are going to load wood. I keep it closed even if I am building a col bed, it starts faster and puts out more heat.



well that's the keyword, coal bed. it's difficult to maintain that coal bed, and lose it, it takes a day to build it back up again. I question the heat transfer of the combustion flue, it's relatively small and how much heat can it radiate ? many who have used those stoves, got more heat in direct draft mode, than in indirect mode- with both wood and coal.

I've burned an Atlanta Homesteader for 4 years in the 1990's. It was basically a Riteway without the combustion flue side exit feature, only a top side exit, a conventional cabinet stove. That's all a Riteway is, a cabinet design with an additional combustion flue, and 2 vent louvers in place of 2 other firebricks. These types of stoves are still available new at Tractor Supply for $750 right now. I was looking at one yesterday. I do own a Riteway 37 as well. we're going to put it in a 2 car garage most likely. I would not heat my house with that. currently I'm heating my house with 2 tons of anthracite coal/year with a Harman Mark I that I bought around 2001. My yearly heat bill is $400 now and I don't have to fell, cut, buck, transport, split, stack, carry wood. I'd have to burn 4-6 cords of wood to equal the heat I get from that coal. and the coal fire will burn 24-36 hours on one load, with as much particulate emissions as oil or gas heat. coal stoves are currently EPA legal without any cat or secondary burn, they have very low particulate emissions, lower than the best wood stove made. it's a matter of geographics as we have many anthracite strip mines here and dirt cheap coal prices. common sense. wood is great heat but when it's no longer free, other methods are cheaper and more effective. we own a 50 acre plot with standing timber, I can get all the wood I want for free. but I'd spend more money heating with wood, than just using coal. for the cost of one good Husky chainsaw I heat my house for 2 years. we're fortunate in that we have many strip mines located nearby. I pay $200/ton delivered, but can drive in and get it for $165/ton with my own truck. wood by the cord is actually more expensive now.

it all comes own to burn times, and what's your time worth getting firewood. even a minimum wage job at Burger King pays $7.50/hour. If I spent a week or two processing firewood every year to burn, I'm way ahead just buying the 2 tons of coal for now, and using my time for other pursuits. this isn't even calculating how much gas in the truck and chainsaws, bar oil, chains, etc. I'd use up getting firewood.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 11, 2014)

here are my concerns with the Riteway bypass mode, it just doesn't seem to work sometimes ?

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:11 am
Rob R. wrote:Are you running the "direct damper" with the handle in the down position? (so the flue gasses go out the side of the firebox).

Hey Rob, I have been running my stove, very similar to this one, with the diverter handle in the up position. With it in the down position it diverts the hot gasses right out of the flue without the benefit of heating the mass of metal that the firebox is. I started doing this in the really cold days when I couldn't get enough heat out of the stove to keep up. I noticed my flue was really hot 300+,and the firebox was relatively cool mid 300's.
Now when I have the stove in the exact same setting and conditions but the handle in the up position, my flue temps go way down to 210* and my stove temps go up to 412*
That diverter never made any sense to me in that why would you want to let the hot gasses escape without the benefit of its heating, I'm really not sure as to why they even have it on the stove, can you or someone enlighten me on this, am I wrong in some way. Really has been puzzling me.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:57 am
I decided to do a little study on my stove yesterday and my findings confirm that having this stove in the direct mode produces the most efficient burn in terms of extracting the heat from the fuel. I'm not trying to dispute what you fellas are saying to me about the proper function of this stove and others like it, just trying to settle things in my mind.
So here are the results. The stove was filled three hours prior to this test and all volatiles had been burnt off. The stove was at a stable temperature for an hour steady.
I started with the stove in the direct mode, handle up. The stove temp is 309* and stack is 163*. I then dropped the handle down to indirect mode. I did not open the door or adjust anything. I waited for an hour and a half and the stove temp was 280* and stack temp was 261*. As you can see I lost almost 30* in stove temp and gained 98* in stack temp. To confirm my findings I flipped the handle back up to direct mode and the temps quickly, in 30 mins, returned very close to the original temps.
It's curious to me as to the design of this indirect mode because as said earlier its forcing the gasses out the bottom, thus not allowing the hot gasses to pass by the bulk of the stove metal and warming it. The gasses just exit in the middle of the coal bed and right out to the flue, there is no extended path to take. It confirms to me anyway that in the indirect mode a lot of heat is escaping out of the flue without the benefit of its energy. Where am I wrong in this, please tell me, it's a bit puzzling to me.
Just for the record, my stove heats the house in either mode with no problems except when its single digits, then it struggles in the indirect mode to keep the house above 70* whereas in the direct mode it just cruises along on setting 3,1/4.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:49 pm
LsFarm wrote:...

But an increase in flue temps HAS to be the result of a direct pathway from the fire to the flue..
More passageway=more surface to absorb heat=lower temps in the exhaust gasses..

Greg L..


And there in lies the problem. The so called indirect pathway is no more that closing the upper route and opening a route to the flue through the coal bed. What I am saying is that the air feeds from under the bed like any stove but instead of exhausting through the top the gasses now have a route right at mid depth of the coal bed. There is no extra passageway to force the exhaust up then down then up again, it just goes right on out.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:19 pm
Yes as I understand it is a riteway clone. I actually thought the Hitzer 82 and also this model shared the same design, but now that you point this out maybe they are not the same internally. I did burn wood in it this past fall and will so this spring, but I honestly forget what position the handle was in when I burnt wood. i did not get any literature with this stove as far as the operation goes, I've just went by what I could pick up on this site. I think at this point a call to DS would be warranted to get the actual low down in the operation of this stove directly from the manufacturer.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *samhill* On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:25 am
I have a 75 in my garage that I burn wood in (not there enough for coal) but without any temp taking or measuring just going by what I experience BD is correct, I tried different control settings & I get more heat just by using the lever up position than by directing the draft lower & get longer burn times as well.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:01 pm
Well since that post during last years burn season and that unscientific study I did I have been burning it in the direct exhaust configuration(arm up). I have to say this beast has zero issues in heating my home this way even with these extreme cold days that have been passing through. The heat is much more uniform also, in that I mean after I fill it in the evening and give it a couple hours to settle on a temp, it will stay at that temp through to the next day unless I decide to change the setting on the bi-metal stat. Like I said in another post, It may not be the most efficient stove out there but I'll never run out of enough thermostat to make things warm in the house.

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *EarthWindandFire* On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:12 pm
I created this thread eighteen months ago, how come nobody ever told me to leave the handle in the UP position ???

*Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.*


By: *Bruce M* On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:17 pm


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 11, 2014)

Davidbradley I think you are confusing the awessome Riteway wirh the inferior Hitzer. The only reason I am commenting is all the complaints you are quoting is the knock-off not the real thing. I am not saying the the Riteway is any thing special but mine is putting out insane heat right now with the secondary combustion engaged. Should I open up the secondary burn chamber and let the heat go up the pipe???


----------



## flotek (Jan 11, 2014)

A campfire in a box will heat most houses if your willing to feed it enough fuel .as far as flue my furnace has a flue temperature of 150-200 burning hot with a full load of dry seasoned slabs .I can put my hand on my flue most of the time ,that's good!!it means the advanced secondary heat exchanger is doing its job and keeping my BTUs in the unit Not going up the flue pipe like most all other old school furnaces if your pipe is over 400 your probably wasting a lot of your heat to the great outdoors


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 12, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I'm not sure of the exact measurements of the thickness of the Model 37 compared to a 55 gallon drum but I bet the Riteway is at least five times the thickness.(Just looked it up. Steel barrels mostly are 18ga, The Riteway is 14 and 10ga.) I say this as I have cut though the Model 37 to install a catalytic view port, so I've experienced the thickness first hand. You are flat out posting misinformation saying the Riteway may be thinner than a 55 gallon barrel. I also never had problems with air leaks. Your stove looks to have been greatly over fired to the point of being damaged. I do agree with you though about the Model 37 not being a 'living room' woodstove. First of all, it's huge. It's ugly, too. Mine was in a finished basement under the main living space.
> 
> I'll attempt to attach a copy of some Riteway information. It has the metal thickness listed. It weighs 415 pounds, just a little heavier than a 55 gallon barrel.




I just went out and measured my Riteway 37. The walls are only .131" thick. If this is your idea of a top notch stove, then you should be happy with that. My Harman is 1/4" plate steel, if I shot it with my 45 ACP, the bullet would bounce off the side. There is something to be said about thicker plate steel. It's better. actually if you're looking for a "good" stove, it should have a minimum of 1/4" thickness

these stoves are a bit on the thin side. That's why this one I have, is warped. I'd bet many of them are. Here's a reference on the issue.

http://www.ehow.com/how_110299_buy-wood-stove.html


4 
Understand the technology in catalytic stoves ($1,000 to $2,000). A catalytic combustor cuts normal burn temperatures in half for a slow, controlled fire with the fewest emissions. Look for a cast iron or plate-steel stove body 1/4 inch (6 mm) thick and a tight closing bypass plate 5/16 inch (8 mm) thick. Also look for a design that protects the combustor from direct flame.

5 
Consider non-catalytic (recirculating) stoves ($500 to $2,200) for their two-chamber combustion, which injects jets of preheated air into the fire to boost heat and reduce emissions. Look for a cast-iron or plate-steel body 1/4 inch (6 mm) thick. To resist warping, the fire chamber's baffle should be 5/16-inch (8 mm) plate steel with V-shaped supports. These models have no combustor to maintain, but their smaller fireboxes mean you'll have to use shorter logs and load them more frequently.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 12, 2014)

flotek said:


> A campfire in a box will heat most houses if your willing to feed it enough fuel .as far as flue my furnace has a flue temperature of 150-200 burning hot with a full load of dry seasoned slabs .I can put my hand on my flue most of the time ,that's good!!it means the advanced secondary heat exchanger is doing its job and keeping my BTUs in the unit Not going up the flue pipe like most all other old school furnaces if your pipe is over 400 your probably wasting a lot of your heat to the great outdoors



you would not want a campfire box in your living room of a $200k home, next to your sectional couch and curtains. that's a recipe for disaster. I want more than a piece of sheetmetal between my house and the fire in the box.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 13, 2014)

Ehow, the world's foremost authority on engineering and stove safety. Get a life, man.


----------



## CTYank (Jan 13, 2014)

oldspark said:


> We can go back on forth on this until the cows come home but the fact of the matter is there are statements etched in concrete that should not be allowed to cloud the issue.
> One of them is as spidey says, secondary combustion happens when the fire is hot enough, the old stoves do not smoke at that point in time, not sure what the testing showed, some of tests are like pissing into the wind.



Now there's a blanket statement or two. Speak up Spidey. Oldspark, you might want to study up some on how combustion of solid fuels takes place. It's not a matter of smoke/no-smoke. That's waaay simplistic. There are many types of emissions.
What matters is how completely combustion takies place over what ranges of conditions. You can't extract heat from what's unburnt.
Ride around in the backcountry up north, and you'll see plenty of "old stoves" waving their white flag.
Spidey, how about some relaxation therapy? If you and others would stop screaming and stamping their feet, we might talk. And listen.
There's no situation where we can't learn, a lot even. First, think "I don't know everything."


----------



## oldspark (Jan 13, 2014)

CTYank said:


> Now there's a blanket statement or two. Speak up Spidey. Oldspark, you might want to study up some on how combustion of solid fuels takes place. It's not a matter of smoke/no-smoke. That's waaay simplistic. There are many types of emissions.
> What matters is how completely combustion takies place over what ranges of conditions. You can't extract heat from what's unburnt.
> Ride around in the backcountry up north, and you'll see plenty of "old stoves" waving their white flag.
> Spidey, how about some relaxation therapy? If you and others would stop screaming and stamping their feet, we might talk. And listen.
> There's no situation where we can't learn, a lot even. First, think "I don't know everything."


All I said was secondary combustion takes place in a hot fire, and I can find a link stating that, not sure why you are reading more into my post.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 13, 2014)

OK CTYank... I'll speak-up.
In an older stove that feeds air under the fire (smoke dragon) there's always enough oxygen remaining, after the primary burn, to initiate what's commonly called on this web site as secondary burn or combustion... enough heat is all that's required.
So yeah... I agree with oldspark...
Secondary combustion happens when the fire is hot enough, the old stoves do not smoke at that point in time... blanket statement or not, it's the truth.

The addition of what's commonly called on this web site as secondary air isn't a requirement... it simply makes secondary combustion easier to achieve at lower fire temperature.
But then-again, feeding air under the fire, rather than above the fire, causes a much hotter burn (like in a forge)... so... secondary air is *not* required if you run them properly (choking them down too much ain't running them properly).
From what I saw running my EPA box; that thing made more smoke (before secondary combustion started) than any smoke dragon I've ever used... and I attribute that directly to the improper feeding of air to the fire (i.e., over the top). That's sort'a dirty trick, don't ya think?? Intentionally causing a poor primary burn just to facilitate and easier secondary burn?? I know it pizzed me off to no friggin' end.
*


----------



## flotek (Jan 13, 2014)

It's not a question of if it's over or under. ..An Englander furnace( owned one for half a decade) has air coming in from a slide damper above the wood and flames and it does nothing for secondary re burn . True secondary is nice because it just kind of slows the whole process of burning down and still puts out good heat instead of a cool dirty smolder.the outside air must be routed around and preheated then introduced above the fire and sent through small holes once the temperature is high enough it ignites. Just adding air above a fire does nothing to get that extra 30% burnt off


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 13, 2014)

flotek said:


> *True secondary is nice because it just kind of slows the whole process of burning down...*



Say what??
That secondary combustion box I have (being used in the shop now) *burns down* to a bed of (non-heating) coals *faster* than any I've ever owned.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 13, 2014)

flotek said:


> *It's not a question of if it's over or under. An Englander furnace (owned one for half a decade) has air coming in from a slide damper above the wood and flames and it does nothing for secondary re burn.*


And it's not intended to initiate secondary combustion (they don't have a secondary combustion air feed), it's intended to keep the glass clean, just like the primary air (door air wash) is in a secondary combustion box.
I actually looked seriously at an Englander last year before the DAKA fell in my lap... the only thing that held me back from buying it was the air coming in from the top.
Your above statement just adds credence to mine...
"_...feeding air under the fire, rather than above the fire, causes a much hotter burn (like in a forge)... so... secondary air is *not* required..._"

addendum; And don't forget, the Englander has a draft spinner knob located on the ash door to allow air in *under the fire‼*



Del_ said:


> *...most of the old smoke dragons enter via screw knobs in their doors a few inched off of the bottom of the firebox.*


All of the ones I'm familiar with, including the one before the EPA box and the one dad has now, had screw knobs on the doors... and those doors were of double wall construction that fed the air *under the grate*... basically they feed the air into the ash collection area under the grate. Even my DAKA combustion air intake is located *above the grate* on the *outside* of the box, but there's a welded channel that feeds it *under the grate* (into the ash collection area) *inside* the box. I ain't tryin' to say there weren't some stupid deigns in the past... I'm just sayin I was never unlucky enough to own one.
*


----------



## flotek (Jan 13, 2014)

Yes that's true there is a spin draft on the ash drawer of an Englander but the top slide is really where the settings takeplace it is not simply for air wash the spin draft must be barely open if you expect to get more than. 4 hrs burn time out of it once you have ran one for five years you get to know their limitations . however it's still better than a cheap daka from what I can see the daka features and specs are bare bones minimum but then again there cheap cost reflects that . True secondary air system has real world positive results


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 13, 2014)

flotek said:


> *...it's still better than a cheap daka from what I can see the daka features and specs are bare bones minimum but then again there cheap cost reflects that.*



I'm not gettin' where this "cheap" price, compared to the Englander, comes from??
Actually, the Englander is "cheaper" than the DAKA... but for $100.oo more the DAKA offers some nice features the Englander don't.

Home Depot sells the Englander for $1200.oo...
Menards sells the DAKA 621 (comparable to the Englander at 125,000 BTU) for $1300.oo... (By-the-way, my DAKA model sells for $1900.oo at Menards).
The 621 has a real cast grate, an automatic draft control, a secondary heat chamber controlled with a sliding baffle, two warm air outlets, and is rated for coal... heck, it even weighs more‼
The Englander has... well... a glass door.

Unless you really want the glass door... and are willing to live with that stupid over-fire combustion air intake... why buy the Englander??
*


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 13, 2014)

The 621 has a real cast grate, an automatic draft control, a secondary heat chamber controlled with a sliding baffle,

*[/quote]
Sounds like my Riteway 37, cast iron grate, automatic draft control, and a sliding baffle secondary burn control.


----------



## davidbradley360 (Jan 14, 2014)

the dirty little secret about EPA stoves is this- they tout 30% less wood consumption than a conventional old stove. the only way to get that, is with 30% less primary DRAFT. so basically they are smoldering the fire down lower and attempting to burn that smoke to clean up emissions, while recovering BTU's from the smoke, to get the stove to put out a comparable BTU rating to an old conventional stove that's wide open using more draft. one thing about old stoves, they may have ate a lot of wood, but they also put out a lot of HEAT. I'm skeptical about how well these new stoves heat a home, with equal firebox size to an old stove. Because if they use 30% less wood, there's only one way to do that, and that's with 30% less draft.

from another common sense standpoint, are things so BAD in this country now, that we have to try to burn smoke, instead of just throwing a few more logs on the fire ? when our family did heat with wood, it was 6 cords a year to heat a relatively big home. a 30% wood savings would mean, not even 2 cords barely.

if things are so bad that I can't afford 2 more cords of wood, in labor or cost- at that point there's something seriously wrong with the entire system and economy. even at today's wood prices that's only $440 for 2 cords delivered. If I can't afford that much more expense a year to heat my house, then I can't afford a house, or a life. That's less than one month's gas money in our family cars now. we need to turn towards the corporations and financial institutions that are causing this situation, and call them on the carpet for it. instead we let them point at our chimneys and say it's smoking too much, while we struggle to save a few dimes heating with wood. this is like watching a puppy get beat up by a full grown german shepherd, and not being able to help the puppy.

at this rate I'll be getting only one creamer with my coffee, and only one ketchup with my burger, at the fast food joint and donut drive through, and that is exactly what's happening. they ARE putting less creamers and sugars and condiments in the bag. austerity is being forced upon us, by the banking system and financial structure. this is BS already, these are the same guys living in 25,000 square foot mansions and burning $5000 worth of fuel oil a month, to heat them.

while we scrimp, burn a few pieces of wood, and have to throw a lever to reburn the smoke, if we want more heat. under the guise of emissions and saving the environment ? c'mon guys, wake up- everyone is being screwed here. if they are forcing us to use wood stoves that use less draft, and smokes less, then they are regulating the very AIR that surrounds us. they are taxing and policing the AIR in your home !! they have no right to it.

there's no bread...let them eat cake ? after your eat your sandwich, is you're still hungry, then sweep up the crumbs and eat them next. burn the smoke from your fires, for more heat. can't you see what's being done here ? it all boils down to more for them, and less for you.

I think the "savings" from buying these expensive high end, high tech EPA stoves, is overly exaggerated. and I see a lot of them being put up for sale lately. the market is flooded. $220/cord wood here locally, means wood is more expensive than coal. it also has more particulate pollution than coal. where are we going with this ? where's the advantage ?

I have several family members who heat their homes using natural gas, including the hot water, for $220-$260 month. if there's a natural gas line in front of your house, that's the best bet. why spend more to have less convenience and the mess, and risk a chimney fire to boot, heating with any alternate fuel and stove.

I think it's time for everyone to take a step back and re-evaluate alternate heating, because it's getting more expensive by the year, to the point it's costing many people more money, than just running their main furnace on city gas. of course this may change in the future. but for now, there's a glut of nat gas, prices are cheap for it.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

Very, very well said davidbradley360, very well said...
And to quote myself...
"_That's sort'a dirty trick, don't ya think?? Intentionally causing a poor primary burn just to facilitate and easier secondary burn?? I know it pizzed me off to no friggin' end._"

addendum; And don't forget, the proposed new regulations reduce the existing allowable emissions by 80%, include more types of appliances, and outright outlaw some others. That's what happens when you give government an inch... they'll come back and take a mile every time. Indirectly I blame those who have defended EPA regulations and the stoves they inspired as a "good thing"... it never is, never has been, and never will be a "good thing" when government "regulates" our private lives, directly or indirectly.
*


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

I am more then willing to say my EPA stove cant carry my pre EPA's stoves jock strap but there are reasons for the regulations are there not, some parts of the country have a lot of wood burners in a area causing a ton of pollution , some of that is due to bad burning practices but they had their reasons.
Not sure why we living in a more open area with very few burning wood have to go by the same regulations.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

We should not have to abide by the same regulations oldspark… that’s the point.

There ain’t anything Constitutionally wrong with local government enacting law, ordinance or regulation to address local issues… provided the majority of voters in that locality want such. For that matter, there ain’t anything wrong for State government to do the same… provided the State Constitution allows such power and the majority of voters want such. The State of California has enacted emission laws/regulations prior to Federal laws/regulations for decades… and still has many much tighter. Even without Federal intervention, manufacturers in the free market produced products to meet the demand in California… and still do‼

The remainder of the country is still at liberty to choose… they may purchase California compliant products if they choose. People living in California are also still at liberty to choose… if they’re unhappy with State law, ordinance or regulation they may choose to move to an area more to their liking. A Federal “regulation” removes those liberties from all of us…

So how has the Federal Government accomplished this??
Simple… by bastardizing the “Commerce Clause” during the FDR administration. FDR was so enraged by the SCOTUS continuously limiting his power during the first term he actually proposed, “packing the Court" with sympathetic justices by increasing its size from nine to fifteen. Although he didn’t get that accomplished, he did appoint 9 judges to the SCOTUS during his presidency and nearly 200 to lesser courts. Eventually the power of federal government under the “Commerce Clause” was expanded to the point our Founding Fathers would be ashamed. We've had to live under that horrendous damage ever since… only in recent years has some (small bits) of that expanded power been reigned back in by SCOTUS.

OK... that's enough politics... don't feel like goin' campin'.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *.....and like burning smoke is a bad thing?*



Nope, not a "bad" thing... but the "regulation" requiring you to do so is... no matter what the perceived "good".
*


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

The smoldering comment about secondary burning stoves is just plain wrong.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Nope, not a "bad" thing... but the "regulation" requiring you to do so is... no matter what the perceived "good".
> *


So you want no regulation at all, what all does this include.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 14, 2014)

First things first. *The next person to go off on a political rant in this post gets a warning, and the whole mess gets tossed over the fence into political.* Is that clear?



davidbradley360 said:


> the dirty little secret about EPA stoves is this- they tout 30% less wood consumption than a conventional old stove. the only way to get that, is with 30% less primary DRAFT. so basically they are smoldering the fire down lower and attempting to burn that smoke to clean up emissions, while recovering BTU's from the smoke, to get the stove to put out a comparable BTU rating to an old conventional stove that's wide open using more draft. one thing about old stoves, they may have ate a lot of wood, but they also put out a lot of HEAT. I'm skeptical about how well these new stoves heat a home, with equal firebox size to an old stove. Because if they use 30% less wood, there's only one way to do that, and that's with 30% less draft.
> 
> from another common sense standpoint, are things so BAD in this country now, that we have to try to burn smoke, instead of just throwing a few more logs on the fire ? when our family did heat with wood, it was 6 cords a year to heat a relatively big home. a 30% wood savings would mean, not even 2 cords barely.
> 
> ...



I burn wood because:

It is byproduct of owning property. It'll go to waste if I don't burn it. If it falls in a field, or onto a fence, I have to process it anyway, at least minimally. You obviously weren't raised "rural poor" if you'd rather waste 1/3 of your wood by sending it out the chimney. Waste not, want not.

It is cheaper. My cost of production is FAR less than I could buy it for locally, but even good hardwood at $200-$250/cord (I'm just outside the Minneapolis metro area, and prices reflect that) is cheaper than $2 propane, or electric at $.12/KWH

I actually ENJOY working firewood, and enjoy wood heat even more. It's as much a lifestyle to me as it is a choice.

My stove was not inexpensive, at $1200 with some new pipe, a circulating fan, etc., but it was right in the price range of the smaller non-EPA furnaces, and substantially cheaper than a unit like the Kuuma (I might have spent the money for either type of furnace were it not for an already low ceiling in the basement and making them even lower with the ductwork installed at required clearances)

I'm at almost exactly a year of heating with this stove. In that time, (remember the cold spring we had and the recent long cold snap), I've put 6 cords through it. The old Woodchuck was burning 10 a year in a cold year. That's 4 cords I don't need to cut or buy, or continue to cut the same amount and sell. $1200 extra a year pays for a really nice vacation to go somewhere and watch cars chase each other in circles.

Does my stove put out less heat than the old one, yes. It's also half the size of the old one. It's ENOUGH to keep me comfortable down to about -10F without propane assist, which is all I can really expect given that there's no one around to fill it when I'm gone 10-12 hours a day at work. Even with the old stove, the furnace would often kick on toward the end of a load of wood in cold weather.

I can see why your rants got locked up at the other site, and while we're more tolerant here, my tolerance tank is getting down there.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 14, 2014)

Forgot to put that savings in terms Spidey will understand. That 4 cords a year, $1200, is the equivalent of 65 cases of Bud a year, more if you buy it on sale.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

oldspark said:


> *So you want no regulation at all...*



I've never advocated that... ever‼
Read my post at the top of this page... I clearly spell-it-out.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> *Forgot to put that savings in terms Spidey will understand. That 4 cords a year, $1200, is the equivalent of 65 cases of Bud a year, more if you buy it on sale.*



Yeah but...
If'n ya' haf'ta cut more wood, ya' don't haf'ta buy the extra beer, 'cause ya' ain't got time to drink it... see, it's a wash not a savings 
*


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 14, 2014)

Speak for yourself, Spidey. Cutting wood makes me thirstier. I'm good-n-ready for a cold one or 12 after a day of cutting wood. Tastes better in front of a fire, too. Indoors or out, depending on season.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 14, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> Forgot to put that savings in terms Spidey will understand. That 4 cords a year, $1200, is the equivalent of 65 cases of Bud a year, more if you buy it on sale.


Wait - you mean if I use an EPA stove and cut less wood I have to drink Bud? Man, those EPA guys really are cruel!

 - but real beer please!


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I've never advocated that... ever‼
> Read my post at the top of this page... I clearly spell-it-out.


I get ya now , your PM explained it well, just a newbie here and still learning the ropes.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

I have nothing against the EPA stoves as long as you know what you are getting and understand what they are and what they aint.
Different parts of the country can have a lot to do with it also (warmer vs cold)


----------



## naturelover (Jan 14, 2014)

I'll tell ya, the Englander 30 cranks out the heat, way more than my old 520 ever thought about, even on a load of coal.

Part of that is that it is a bigger firebox, but still, I can be on the secondaries and have stovetop temps cruising at 700* for at least a few hours on not so good wood. 

It'll really shine when I get some good dry oak on there. 

And there's the rub. DRY wood. Why most people return the stoves complaining they ain't throwing out any heat, because their "fuel" is substandard, not the stove. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cerran (Jan 14, 2014)

> the dirty little secret about EPA stoves is this- they tout 30% less wood consumption than a conventional old stove. the only way to get that, is with 30% less primary DRAFT. so basically they are smoldering the fire down lower and attempting to burn that smoke to clean up emissions, while recovering BTU's from the smoke, to get the stove to put out a comparable BTU rating to an old conventional stove that's wide open using more draft. one thing about old stoves, they may have ate a lot of wood, but they also put out a lot of HEAT. I'm skeptical about how well these new stoves heat a home, with equal firebox size to an old stove. Because if they use 30% less wood, there's only one way to do that, and that's with 30% less draft.



That is completely untrue and incorrect. A properly designed two-stage combustion stove is able to capture more of the heat and put it into the room in a more efficient manner. It has very little to do with the amount of draft assuming that there is enough draft to properly operate the stove. You seem to equate draft with the amount of air the stove is using and this simply isn't true.

It has a lot to do with the flue temperatures and how the combustion takes place. A staged combustion system (Primary, secondary) that is properly designed will put out the same heat but with far fewer emissions in part because of the lower velocities through multiple stages of combustion but also because of the longer contact of heat transfer surfaces and lower overall flue temperatures.

Newer stoves require 30% less wood because they are putting less unburnt hydrocarbons out of the stove pipe and are generally running lower flue temperatures. Obviously this won't be the case 100% of the time but under most instances it will be.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> Newer stoves require 30% less wood because they are putting less unburnt hydrocarbons out of the stove pipe and are generally running lower flue temperatures. Obviously this won't be the case 100% of the time but under most instances it will be


I know you stated generally lower flue temps but I have seen quite a few people report higher flue temps, mine are through the roof compared to the old stove, I only have 18 feet of chimney but it seems to be more then the Summits wants.
Not sure about the 30% less wood either, its a smaller stove and its straining its milk to keep up so eats a lot of wood, I might be putting the heat up the stack though. Damper is in the plan now.


----------



## flotek (Jan 14, 2014)

[quote="naturelover, post: 4648582, member: ]

And there's the rub. DRY wood. Why most people return the stoves complaining they ain't throwing out any heat, because their "fuel" is substandard, not the stove. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk[/quote]

Exactly !


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

oldspark said:


> *...I have seen quite a few people report higher flue temps, mine are through the roof compared to the old stove...*



Yeah... my flue pipe ran noticeably higher with the EPA box also. In fact, I ran the blower using a snap switch mounted on a bracket about 4 inches away from the pipe... and there was plenty of heat to engage it. I don't use a thermometer so I don't know the exact number; but I can hold my hand damn close the the pipe on the current DAKA smoke dragon (within and inch or two), I often needed to turn my face away from the pipe on the EPA box. On the previous smoke dragon (before the EPA box) I could actually lay my hand on the pipe above the flue damper. When I tried using the flue damper with the EPA box the shaft got so hot it sagged and the spring lost all tension. That's a lot of heat exiting the flue... a lot‼
*


----------



## Cerran (Jan 14, 2014)

oldspark said:


> I know you stated generally lower flue temps but I have seen quite a few people report higher flue temps, mine are through the roof compared to the old stove, I only have 18 feet of chimney but it seems to be more then the Summits wants.
> Not sure about the 30% less wood either, its a smaller stove and its straining its milk to keep up so eats a lot of wood, I might be putting the heat up the stack though. Damper is in the plan now.



It all depends on the setup but from my experience when you move from a non-EPA to a Re-burn or Catalytic stove of similar sized firebox, generally speaking both flue temperatures and emissions (particularly visible emissions) are lower.

If you undersize the stove and run it very hard, you're going to get elevated flue temperatures because of the high velocities and low residence time in the primary/secondary combustion zones.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 14, 2014)

*Oh crap... I can't believe I missed a golden opportunity....*



Del_ said:


> *You are going to have to speak up son, so I can hear you above the roaring fire in my Jotul Firelight 600CB.*



LMFAO‼
That's a "roaring" fire?? Heck man, that's barely above a medium smolder‼
I carry a cigar lighter that puts out more "fire" than that‼
LMFAO‼


----------



## flotek (Jan 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... my flue pipe ran noticeably higher with the EPA box also. In fact, I ran the blower using a snap switch mounted on a bracket about 4 inches away from the pipe... and there was plenty of heat to engage it. I don't use a thermometer so I don't know the exact number; but I can hold my hand damn close the the pipe on the current DAKA smoke dragon (within and inch or two), I often needed to turn my face away from the pipe on the EPA box. On the previous smoke dragon (before the EPA box) I could actually lay my hand on the pipe above the flue damper. When I tried using the flue damper with the EPA box the shaft got so hot it sagged and the spring lost all tension. That's a lot of heat exiting the flue... a lot‼
> *


Sounds like perhaps you had too much draft on the EPA unit if it was going that hot or maybe air was coming in from some source like a leaky gasket or something . Maybe just maybe your assumptions on the one EPA unit you are basing your experiences on was running improperly and not what most users experience On there's


----------



## oldspark (Jan 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> If you undersize the stove and run it very hard, you're going to get elevated flue temperatures because of the high velocities and low residence time in the primary/secondary combustion zones


 They are high all the time, small fire big fire any type a fire you can put in the stove, like I said I need to try a damper with the new chimney.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 14, 2014)

Depending on the chimney setup, it could be drawing too much air through the stove. 

Some people have had to close off some of the unregulated intake air, for instance, placing magnets over some of the air intake holes. Most of these were developed for a 15' or so chimney, if you got a 30' chimney drawing like a freight train, it could be running hotter. 

My 17' flue runs cooler with the 30 than with the 520, so much so that I doubt it would even flip the switch on my miracle heat reclaimer, if it were installed. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 14, 2014)

oldspark said:


> They are high all the time, small fire big fire any type a fire you can put in the stove, like I said I need to try a damper with the new chimney.


We're probably back to the old issue of primary and secondary draft control. With my US Stoves Magnolia the single draft control limits both, but with my small Hampton H200 it only limits primary. I would have a hard time keeping control of my Magnolia if it did not limit secondary air too, due to the strong draft of that flue. As it is I can just about put it out no matter how hard it is going.

The smaller H200 is on a shorter flue and has never been a problem.


----------



## Cerran (Jan 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> *Oh crap... I can't believe I missed a golden opportunity....*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look at the wood inside the stove, it's in the mid to late stages of coaling and most of the volatiles have been driven off. Based on the picture I would say the stove is on the backside of the heat output curve for the loading cycle.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 15, 2014)

flotek said:


> *Sounds like perhaps you had too much draft... maybe... a leaky gasket or something. Maybe... running improperly...*



Blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa... blaa...
We've been through all that to the point of puking all over the floor. I tried everything suggested... and a couple dozen more.
Why is it so hard for some of y'all to just believe that the modern, high-efficiency units are *not always the best choice* for all applications and situations‼ Why is it so hard for some of y'all to just believe that the modern, high-efficiency units are *not necessarily* the best thing since sliced bread for everybody's needs‼

Cerran,
I was bein' a smart-azz man, it was nothing more than a friendly dig.
*


----------



## VINIFIREWOOD (Jan 15, 2014)

Any of you guys have experience with or seen one of these?



Don't remember where I ran across this on the net a couple years ago. Couldn't seem to find any info on them then other than made in Canada.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 15, 2014)

Barrel stove on steroids... I understand they really kick out some serious heat.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Wood fires are beautiful and seeing the stage of the fire is a tremendous aid in running a wood stove efficiently and almost effortlessly.


 Yes wood fires are beeeuuuutiful but a stove top thermo and a stack thermo will tell you what you need to know plus my old stove was a lot less finicky then the new one.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Barrel stove on steroids... I understand they really kick out some serious heat.


Rates high on my neat list, plus if it does not work you can shoot sky rockets out of the tubes on the 4th.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I have stack and stove top thermos but they don't tell me nearly as much as viewing through the glass. For instance at start up. Or when to add some wood.
> 
> And to know from 20ft. across the room is a big advantage.
> 
> ...


At start up the temps are rising and you need wood when the temps are getting lower, if the temps are out of line you know the fire is not responding and you change the air settings. Not sure why the temp gauges did not indicate what you needed to know.
Ran the old stove that way for 30 years with no problems, only source of heat in the house.
Running it that way in the shop now with no issues.
The old stove was a set it and forget it stove, new one not the same, you have to keep a close eye on it and shut it down in stages.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa... blaa...
> We've been through all that to the point of puking all over the floor. I tried everything suggested... and a couple dozen more.
> Why is it so hard for some of y'all to just believe that the modern, high-efficiency units are *not always the best choice* for all applications and situations‼ Why is it so hard for some of y'all to just believe that the modern, high-efficiency units are *not necessarily* the best thing since sliced bread for everybody's needs‼
> 
> ...



What model of EPA stove did you have? Can't remember. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I never said temp gauges didn't indicate what I needed to know.
> 
> 
> But why look at gauges when you can see the state of the wood stove from across the room with just a glance?
> ...


Not everyone's stove is viewable from across the room and as I walk by the stove I just look at the gauges.
What works for you works for you, I was just pointing out temp gauges work if you do not have glass in your door.
And you did say it did not tell you as much as viewing the fire.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Gauges don't tell you as much as watching the fire directly. Gauges are like watching a beauty contest and picking the winner based on measurements.
> 
> For instance when getting a fire started, gauges tell you nothing. Direct viewing even from 20ft. away tells the whole story.
> 
> ...


Not sure why you want to argue about this.
Starting a new fire in a stove gets hotter (in my part of the world any way) so flue and stove temps thermometers tell you the fire is going well.
My stove is not tucked away but in the center of the house not the living room. Why would you think its tucked away?
This has nothing to do with my old stove, just talking about temp gauges and how useful they are.
You trying to turn this into some thing else?
And why do you think I smoldered the fire, any idiot should know better.
You obviously have never run an older stove correctly (as many others also)


----------



## oldspark (Jan 15, 2014)

Del_ said:


> A newly started stove doesn't run hotter if it doesn't catch on.


Gauges show that, did you not read my post?
Just say you want to debate how the new stoves run.
You never answered my questions though, why do you think my stove is tucked away and why do you think I smoldered the fire.
All the advice on running the new stoves states reduce the air in stages, that one fact alone makes it more "difficult".
Now I am well aware that some of the older stoves were crap but mine was not and any one could run that.
I have been heating about 2500 sq feet in NW Iowa for the last 3 years with the new stove so I think I know how to run MY new stove.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Jan 15, 2014)

*A newly started stove doesn't run hotter if it doesn't catch on.*

And the guages would reflect that.

Sounds like corn flakes got peed in this morning....


----------



## naturelover (Jan 15, 2014)

You know, I've heard about the stages thing, but I can pretty much set mine after it's been going a bit without doing that. 


I've got a stovetop gauge on the 30, mainly because it is my first EPA stove, and was making sure I wasn't over firing it. 

But after a few fires, I can look in there and tell what its doing. 

However, I'd think one could run a non windowed EPA stove with a good set of gauges and knowing what, and when, temps you should be running at. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## flotek (Jan 15, 2014)

I couldn't imagine running a wood heating appliance without a viewing window ..yes a minor amount of heat is lost through the ceramic glass but it's not technically lost " per say . It tells you everything you need to know about the current state of your burning in the firebox and gives ambience ..Having a stove or furnace without a window to me would be like having a house without windows might as well live in a jail cell


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 15, 2014)

Great thread people all think their way is best. We just open up the draft until we are to hot shut er down until it needs more wood, Rocket science. I am going to hire a brain surgeon to tell me if my wood is ready yet. The report is it is not yet.
Now I need an economist to tell me if i can buy a new EPA stove and two years of dry wood so I wont be low on wood feeding the smoke dragons. I think I will write Obama a letter for advice since he is does us such a good job.


----------



## Oxford (Jan 15, 2014)

Well, it's good to see Whitespider and his giant pulsating brain are consistent, at least. For those of you who may have missed the original account of his experience with an EPA stove, it went something like this:

1. His original stove shot craps.
2. He cabbages on to an EPA stove from the used but nice pile. He matched it to his wallet, not his application.
3. He combined several boxes of beer with about $100 in assorted electrical hardware and sheet metal to make a furnace out of a wood stove, slid it into place and went to work. Sum total of time spent making sure implement fit application: 0.
4. His wife got cold, because he, like me, lives in an old house with poor windows and insulation, and she wasn't able to magically make his hermaphrodite stove work, in spite of his repeated insistences that the laws of physics do not apply to him, that the EPA is a bunch of know-nothings, something about the Trilateral Commission, the "bungalow syndrome", and other sound and fury signifying nothing.
5. Several people, evidently gluttons for punishment, tried to reasonably point out that, in fact, his problems might be due to his own modifications rather than any inherent flaw in the stove.
6. He responded by saying a bunch of stuff that basically amounted to quasi-physics, almost-engineering, and the kind of generalized Internet bull that you can get away with because nobody's looking right at you to call you on it.
7. Eventually, enough truth was presented that he could no longer deny it, and he admitted that maybe his Budweiser-enhanced engineering may have been the problem all along, and he promised to quit blowing about EPA stoves.
8. He found another cheap stove, but this one actually is appropriate to his application.
9. AS crashed, so history vanished and he forgot all the details of his experience and reverted to his default position as the Gabby Johnson of Arboristsite, purveyor and proclaimer of authentic frontier gibberish.
10. And here we are.

I don't really have a dog in the fight. We heat with an Oval Sweetheart cook stove in our kitchen and are happy with it, you can put air to it from any which way you want. Like Spider, I got a really good deal on it. Unlike his, it's exactly what I, and more importantly, my wife, wanted. If I was buying a new one, it would likely be EPA just for the burn times.

I think there's room for debate, but I don't think burning wood gives carte blanche to be willfully ignorant.


----------



## flotek (Jan 15, 2014)

I found that post very entertaining


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 15, 2014)

flotek said:


> I couldn't imagine running a wood heating appliance without a viewing window ..yes a minor amount of heat is lost through the ceramic glass but it's not technically lost " per say . It tells you everything you need to know about the current state of your burning in the firebox and gives ambience ..Having a stove or furnace without a window to me would be like having a house without windows might as well live in a jail cell


I have always thought I wanted a window but for my situation we can run the stoves just fine without one. We actually have a bimetallic thermometer on the old smoke dragon but only look at once a year or two.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 15, 2014)

lol oxford, thanks for the recap!


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 16, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Great thread people all think their way is best. We just open up the draft until we are to hot shut er down until it needs more wood, Rocket science. I am going to hire a brain surgeon to tell me if my wood is ready yet. The report is it is not yet.
> Now I need an economist to tell me if i can buy a new EPA stove and two years of dry wood so I wont be low on wood feeding the smoke dragons. I think I will write Obama a letter for advice since he is do us such a good job.



I really aught to just follow through on my word, but since this post has as much sarcasm as it does poor grammar, I'll let it go and repeat my warning one last time: 



Steve NW WI said:


> *The next person to go off on a political rant in this post gets a warning, and the whole mess gets tossed over the fence into political.* Is that clear?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 16, 2014)

Oxford,
Actually, there's more "internet bull" in your post than anything I've posted about my EPA box.
Let's count 'em back...

10. Yep, and here we are.
9. AS may have crashed but history wasn't lost, all the old threads are still there... pictures may be missing. Seems you're the one that has either forgotten the "details"... or just choose to see them as you wish history was.
8. Cheap stove?? Out of respect for the AS member I purchased it from, I've never stated what I paid for it... I've only stated a new one retails for around $2000.oo.
7. I've *never, ever* admitted that "Budweiser-enhanced engineering" was the problem (but you said it was)... I have said several times that it was the wrong appliance for the intended purpose. And I *never, ever* promised to quit grousing about the EPA or the stoves inspired by regulations... that would be like a dog promising to stop licking his nuts. By-the-way, I un-did all my "Budweiser-enhanced engineering" and installed it in the shop... nothing changed, same issues, different day.
6. I've already mentioned the "internet bull".
5. Several people pointed out several possible problems/solutions, not just the "modifications"... none of them were a solution, most made things worse. Like I said, installed (original configuration) in the shop... same crap.
4. My wife got cold because the box was, and still is, a lousy heater. (For someone who's never stepped foot in my home, or even met me, you sure seem to know a lot about me, my family, my home, and my stove... or is something going on between you and my wife I should know about?) You certainly can ignore the "Florida Bungalow Syndrome" if you choose, but it came from a well respected source in the industry... and as of yet, it's the *one-and-only* explanation that fits *all* the symptoms. If you can find a better one that fits as well or better (based on something other than arm-chair internet observation, personal bias against Budweiser, and a personal distaste for my "style" of posting)... I'm all friggin' ears‼
3. Funny... how is it again that you know so much about me?? Including how much beer was "combined" with the project?? I think you should check the facts again... all that assorted "electrical hardware" consisted of a single $7.oo snap switch.
2. We keep coming back to this... but, seriously man, just how is it that you know me so well that you even know about my wallet??
1. Well... you did manage to get the first and last right... yep, #1 the original firebox cracked and, #10 here we are.

Heck man, I didn't so much mind the content of your post... it could have been damn funny...
What bothered me was ya' tried to represent it as some sort of fact based chronology... which it is far from. Although, no doubt a few will find it funny...
*


----------



## kodiak (Jan 16, 2014)

flotek said:


> I found that post very entertaining


And accurate


----------



## Oxford (Jan 16, 2014)

Well, I don't have time to refute all of this morning's dose of Whitespider Generated Used Oats, but as it turns out, you did it for me, when you posted:

I no longer blame the stove for my problems, or its design by the manufacturer… after all, they have done exactly what they are required to do under EPA regulations. Besides, it ain’t like Pacific Energy didn’t warn me in their manual (although no draft numbers in the manual)…
“_The chimney flue size should be the same as the stove outlet for optimal performance. Reducing or increasing the flue size may adversely affect stove performance._”
But I do see the EPA requirements, and therefore the resulting design, as a contributor to the problems I’m having… under my installation conditions (which are not condoned be the manufacturer). Whether-or-not the EPA requirements are a good thing, or a bad thing, or need revising, or whatever doesn’t change what-is-what-it-is. Using the old air-tight design, with a single air intake under a grate (thereby forcing the air to be pulled up through the fire) and a single combustion gas exit, I was able to close the draft control and/or flue damper to the point it would run properly… and I thought I could do the same with an EPA design. *Well, I was flat wrong* (there, I said it)… and that’s all on me. Trying to place blame somewhere else is simply being pig-headed and refusing to take responsibility for my own mistakes… I didn’t do the study and research I should have, plain and simple.

And while I’m in the mood to admit my part in this fiasco…
No doubt, if connected to a recommended chimney, pulling draft somewhere within specification, my “stovace” would have performed as I expected/wanted… or at least close. There have been dozens of things posted, pointing to what the problem is… such as my modifications, poor draft, blower, and so on. There was one thing posted by *Del* I believe (man I hate to admit that)… simply… “_A Bad Install._”​
There are numerous similar quotes, and every point on my timeline can be supported by one, if you like. It's been quite some time since I was impressed by bluster, and I don't figure I'll start now.


----------



## blacklocst (Jan 16, 2014)

naturelover said:


> lol oxford, thanks for the recrap!


There fixed for accuracy.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 16, 2014)

You're forgetting one very important fact Oxford,
I installed it in the shop, per manufacturer's recommendation, returned to original manufacturer's configuration, even installed new firebrick... and it's as bad or worse than it was in the house.
And furthermore... nowhere in the above did I _"admitted that maybe _(my)_ Budweiser-enhanced engineering may have been the problem all along"_... nowhere‼ That was about the flue/chimney and resulting draft (Remember?? The Florida Bungalow Syndrome??)... but keep puttin' things in the context you like... (shrug)
*


----------



## Oxford (Jan 16, 2014)

Just out of curiosity, would your stovace be installed in the selfsame building about which you wrote the words below?

So anyway, I'll move it out in the shop (which is really and old, drafty, two-stall, detached garage). I've had a couple of barrel stoves in there (nothing now) and the chimney is sort'a a cobble-job... uninsulated pipe running out a window and 10-foot up the back wall. Draft has always been a problem at cold start-up, and not overly great when running... maybe this EPA stove will like that better. Don't worry, if it don't run right I won't be blaming the stove; I know I have "poor" draft in there and nothing has run all that great... but maybe, just maybe, if these stoves really are design to run on the lowest possible draft conditions (as that article says) it might just love my shop with its short, cold chimney.​Must be a different building, since I know you'd never try to get out from under any of your Pronouncements from On High.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 16, 2014)

Oxford said:


> *Just out of curiosity, would your stovace be installed in the selfsame building...*



Yup... same building.
Ran a new double wall pipe straight up off the stove and through the roof... 16 foot total, 3 foot above the peak, not a single elbow in it, even put one of those fancy rain caps on it.
Ain't no stove draft problem now... sucks all the smoke out without so much as a wisp in the building... even on cold start-up and the stove door open.
Sealed up the gaps around the doors, caulked the windows, even hung heavy quilts on the north side... ain't no drafty building now, cigarette smoke floats straight up.
Damn stove fills up with coals and quits heating, faster than it did in the house.... don't make one bit difference where I set the draft, still fills with coals and quits heating.
Seemed to work OK(?) in October when it was 40's and 50's out... but after that not so much.
I got so frustrated over New Years that I put my sheet metal back on, attached a blower to the sheet metal, and ripped the fire brick back out... at least now I can extract a little heat from the coal bed (just like in the house).
I'll have a barrel stove back in there next fall... I'm all done... even when it's 30° and sunny outside the best I can do is 50°, maybe 55° in the shop before I need to start shoveling out live coals (and it's a small two-stall garage).
Plannin' on cuttin' that stove up and using the steel to build the barrel stove stand, door, baffle, and whatnot... flat friggin' done with it.
*


----------



## NSMaple1 (Jan 16, 2014)

What make/model of stove is that anyway?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 16, 2014)

Pacific Energy Spectrum


----------



## flotek (Jan 16, 2014)

Not trying to fan the flames butOut of curiosity what is this modification you refer to ? You did what with a blower and sheet metal. ?this wason a newer pacific epa stove ?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 16, 2014)

flotek,
My brother's father-in-law gave me the stove... I forget exactly, but I'm sure it was something less than 10 years old.
And it's damn good thing I didn't pay good money for it or I'd be spending most of my time in Banned Camp for sure... can you imagine how vocal I'd be??

When I originally installed the box in my house I wanted to use it as a furnace, rather than a stand-alone stove. I'd built furnaces from stove fireboxes before (that's what the previous was, used it for 15 years that way) and figured it would be a slam dunk. I removed all the fancy porcelain coated sheet metal from the stove and replaced them with an air jacket, with blower, and piped it into the ducting. It didn't work As soon as the fire collapsed into a bed of coals it blew cold air, and adding more wood just increased the size of the coal bed. The thing just wouldn't make heat for more than a couple hours... and the coals would never burn down. I was shoveling bucket loads of un-burned coals out and dumping them, and ended up using more firewood last winter than I ever had. We went 'round 'n' 'round on this site about what was wrong, who was wrong, etc. Everythnig you can imagine was blamed, and I tried dozens of different things (many were sure it was my chimney set-up). So far I hadn't made any changes to the firebox proper... but in the end I took out the fire brick (from the sides) so they wouldn't insulated the heat from the firebox walls, and therefore the air jacket. That helped a little, not much, and I fought that thing all last year. It was chilly in my house more than it was warm... and I was continuously screwin' around with it trying to keep it heating.

Now fast-forward to this fall. I un-did all my mods, put the thing back to the way it came off the sales floor. Installed it in my shop per the manual, proper chimney, all that. It won't heat during cold weather, it just makes deep beds of non-heating coals... and the shop (garage) ain't big. So over New Years I went back to what was working best in the house (and that ain't great)... reinstalled the air jacket and blower, removed the fire brick. At least I can get a little heat from the coal bed that way. It is flat the worst, most ridiculous, wood burning appliance I've ever had... I've heated with barrel stoves that gave more heat and used less wood. Maybe all the glass door, secondary burn, air coming in over the top stoves aren't that way... but I'll never know, 'cause I'll never have another.

Then I read in these threads about raking coals to the front (or wherever), placing splits just so, adjusting the draft control several times over a burn cycle, burning coals down, and lord knows what else...
And I think to myself... you have to be friggin' kiddin' me...
I don't give a crap how clean and efficient they (supposedly) burn... that flat blows‼ I've never, ever had to do that crap... occasionally adjust the flue damper slightly for weather conditions, but that's it‼ And with the unit I'm using now I don't even have to do that... I just open the door, toss the wood in however it lands, and slam the door. Heck, if it uses a bit more wood so-be-it... it's friggin' worth it‼ Makin' firewood is enough work, burnin' it should be the easy part

Anyway... there's your answer.
*


----------



## Oxford (Jan 16, 2014)

Not to be disagreeable, but I don't recall you ever actually doing the one thing that was nearly universally recommended: installing a barometric damper to ensure correct stack draft at the stove. Something about them costing eighty dollars, and then I believe a member here offered to hook you up for much less than that and rather than put your money where your mouth is and risk being shown up, you refused his offer. In fact, I don't believe you ever even measured stack draft, in spite of the fact that you yourself stipulated that the chimney in your house had a strong enough draft even with no fire to suck a piece of paper from the basement out the stack. You don't know what your draft is in the shop, and all your bellowin' and bloviatin' and obfuscatin' and denyin' you said things that you said doesn't change that one simple and critically important fact.

In fact, I don't recall you ever making any attempt to install the stove properly according to the manufacturer's instructions- or to know anything about the stove at all other than what you thought it should do- prior to heavily modifying and installing it. The stove may or may not be perfect, but it's hard for me to believe that how you installed and ran it is even in the same ballpark that the installation specifications called out. Even now, I would be willing to make a large wager that your draft isn't even close to correct, and it appears that the manufacturer made it pretty plain that draft was critical.

As I believe I said at the time, you keep saying you know it's not the stove, and then you blame the stove. You got the stove as a gift from someone who had used it successfully in their own home and who likely thought they were giving you a good thing. When you say that stove doesn't work, it seems to me that you're saying that they were lying about it working, and that's weak. That one stove didn't work in your hacked-up application when operated by someone who has apparently never said to himself "Wait a second, maybe I don't know what I'm doing here" and any conclusion, positive or negative, based on that experimental result would be very suspect in my world.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 16, 2014)

Is that only a 2 cu ft firebox?

That seems to be asking a lot of that size stove to heat your drafty house, or that drafty garage. 

You would have been much better served with at least a 3 cu ft box.

I've got the two stall, detached, drafty, windowed garage with 12' ceilings, and it takes brute force to heat it from a dead cold. The 30 does it, but I don't think a 2 cu ft box would have ever heated it.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cerran (Jan 16, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> flotek,
> My brother's father-in-law gave me the stove... I forget exactly, but I'm sure it was something less than 10 years old.
> And it's damn good thing I didn't pay good money for it or I'd be spending most of my time in Banned Camp for sure... can you imagine how vocal I'd be??
> 
> ...



How do you load the stove? Front to back or sideways?

What kind of wood are you using?

It sounds to me like something isn't set up right or something is plugged.

FYI complaining about having to spend another 2 minutes properly prepping a stove for a load cycle doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 17, 2014)

BU!!$H!T Oxford, total friggin bu!!$h!t ‼
This is what the manual says about the chimney and draft... and there ain't draft specification, so there ain't nothin' to measure‼
It states nothing about a draft specification, or damper of any sort

Chimney and Connector
Connect to a listed chimney or a chimney suitable for use
with solid fuel that is lined and in good condition and
meets local building codes. The chimney flue size should
be the same as the stove outlet for optimal performance.
Reducing or increasing the flue size may adversely affect
stove performance. Chimney flue exit is to be 3 feet (1 m.)
above roof and two feet (0.6 m.) above highest projection
within 10 feet (3 m.). The installation must meet all local
codes. Do not connect this unit to a chimney flue serving
another appliance. Minimum system height is 15 feet (4.6
m.) (measured from base of appliance).

Proper Draft
1. Draft is the force which moves air from the appliance
up through the chimney. The amount of draft in your
chimney depends on the length of the chimney, local
geography, nearby obstructions and other factors.
2. Too much draft may cause excessive temperatures
in the appliance. An uncontrollable burn or a glowing
red stove part or chimney indicates excessive draft.
3. Inadequate draft may cause backpuffing into the room
and plugging of the chimney. Smoke leaking into the
room through appliance and chimney connector joints
indicates inadequate draft.

I installed it (in the shop) *exactly* as the manual states‼
And I'm having none of the issues described in the draft section...

Excessive Temperatures - Well that certainly ain't happening.
Uncontrollable Burn - No problem there, I can close the draft down to where the secondary combustion will nearly shut down (and so does the heat).
Glowing Red Stove Part or Chimney - Not a friggin' chance.
Backpuffing - Nope.
Smoke Leaking Into the Room - Nope.


naturelover,
Yeah, bigger may be more better... but my previous box wasn't any bigger... a little deeper, narrower and the same height.
But the problem ain't getting *enough* heat, it makes a ton of heat when the secondary is active... for an hour or maybe two.
The problem is *no friggin' heat* when the secondary shuts down... I mean near friggin' *none‼* (Except what little exits the glass door as radiation.) And it won't burn the friggin' coals down, so ya' can't add wood without throwin' those coals out.


This is all the same crap we went through last winter, same crap... and it ain't worth going through it again.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 17, 2014)

That's also total BULL Del_,
I never mentioned "modern" or "high efficiency" in my last couple posts... neither did I relate my box to any other box, certainly not *all* of 'em. I simply said *I* will never own another... nothing more.
As far as misapplication or improper installation... are you friggin' dense?? Did you read my last couple posts??
I installed it in the shop, *exactly* per manufacturer's directions, and tried using it exactly as it came from the showroom floor.
I can't do any more than that... I ain't the one in denial here.
*


----------



## NSMaple1 (Jan 17, 2014)

I've got a question.

It isn't meant to take any sides in this Battle-Royale going on here, but might be quite relevant to the original thread topic.

Out of curiosity, I googled Spideys stove, and the specs that I found for it for output say:

*Heat Output Cord Wood (BTU)72,000 BTU
Heat Output EPA (BTU)36,600 BTU*

That's quite a variance, once is double the other. So excuse my ignorance - but what do those figures mean and why do the vary by so much? Does it mean that measuring the 'EPA way' is only done using half a load of fuel? Measured heat output should be measured heat output - do all 'EPA' stoves list output that way?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 17, 2014)

You have zero friggin' idea what you're talkin' about Del_.
Where in the hell does it say in the manual that it's _"designed to heat a small insulated house"_ and not a _"drafty open shop"_??
Besides, I already explained, it ain't a _"drafty open shop"_, it's a small two-stall garage (I use for a shop), not much bigger than my friggin' living room for cripes sake‼
It's a heater man... it either heats or it don't.
When I wanted some heat out there the last couple years I used one of those little propane heaters that run off a couple 1 lb cylinder... it heated better, and I could get a couple days use (or more) on a couple cylinders running it on the medium setting (9000 BTU). Just 18,000 BTU's *max setting*, rated for 400²ft... and that was before I fixed the drafts‼ (My garage/shop is 20×24, 480²ft).
I gave that heater to my son for his shop this fall when I installed the stove... I should'a gave him the damn stove and kept the heater.






+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's a damn good question NSMaple1,
As of yet no one has come up with a good explanation... I consider both numbers to be total BS.
Doubtful either number is derived from actually measuring the "output"... just guessin', but likely some math formula based on the "potential" heating value of wood verses the amount of heat exiting the chimney... in other words, total BS.
*
*
*


----------



## oldspark (Jan 17, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> I've got a question.
> 
> It isn't meant to take any sides in this Battle-Royale going on here, but might be quite relevant to the original thread topic.
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly one is sort of an average, the other is max.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 17, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> I've got a question.
> 
> It isn't meant to take any sides in this Battle-Royale going on here, but might be quite relevant to the original thread topic.
> 
> ...


This has been one of WS's big rant points. These are two separate ratings, and it does not say they both occur at the same time. One lists the energy output under the specific conditions defined in the EPA tests. It may not be conditions that are similar to what you want to do, but at least you can read the test procedure, understand what is being done and compare the performance to other stoves under those same conditions.

The other is ill defined and may indicate the maximum energy it can extract from a load (?) of wood. Cord wood cannot mean "a cord of wood" as that represents millions of BTUs. "Cord wood" is probably intended to mean real hardwood as opposed to what is used in the EPA test. Note that BTUs are a unit of energy, not rate of energy output (i.e. BTU/hr, etc.) which would be a measure of power. It could be that they intend it to mean BTU/hr and it's just sloppy spec writing, or it may be that it really means total energy extracted from the wood, however long it takes to do that. A spec like *X* BTU tells you how much of the energy it will ultimately extract from the fuel, but not how long it will take to do that.

You cannot simply equate the two.

This is why it is far more useful to look at a stove's capacity in terms of how much fuel you can put in it. This will give you a feel for the total energy the firebox can contain, and the rate of energy output (i.e. instantaneous output power) will be dependant on the type of stove it is.

A good secondary combustion stove operated correctly will have a significant boost in the _*rate*_ of energy output when the secondary burn is active, and will extract a greater percentage of the energy from the load of fuel (which results in less unburned fuel up the flue). It will not necessarily produce a greater rate of energy output over some arbitrary period (like 8hrs) than a campfire-in-a-box. They have different instantaneous output power profiles, especially if you choose not to adjust the air inlet. There is no conspiracy, one just needs to understand how they work and how to interpret the specifications/ratings and units.

WS's (main) problem was always that the BTU/hr was too low when the secondary combustion stopped because the stove was too small. The installation and operation issues only exacerbated that.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 17, 2014)

Well I have the big brother to the stove Spidey had and I can relate to what he is saying, EPA's stoves have their quirks and will not kick out the same type of heat as the older stoves especially the good ones.
I made the mistake of buying a smaller stove then the old one (people giving advice about wood burners who were crapping yellow when I started burning wood) so I am working on the house and may be getting some where. They work well if matched to the area you are heating.


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 17, 2014)

Ronaldo said:


> I am using a Pacific Energy Super 27 in a fairly well insulated ranch home with only one level that has 2100 square feet. This has been the main source of heat for 13 years and am very pleased with its performance. The stove has required no maintenance other than several secondary burn baffle gaskets(put in a new one when I take the baffle out for inspection and cleaning etc). It is -2 and 20mph winds outside, but a nice 72 inside as I type this. When very cold like this, I use a fan to move a bit more heat to the back bedrooms to keep temps more even. The only time I have coal build up problems is when burning Elm exclusively, and several splits of seasoned oak thrown in take care of excess coals.
> This stove has worked great for me for many years and I highly reccomend them, but not all applications are the same........your mileage may vary as they say. That is my 2 cents.
> Stay Warm!
> Ron


I posted this back on page two:
I can understand that some folks have had issues with the modern EPA rated stoves and I dont know what can be done to solve them, but there are a lot of them out there that are working and working very well. I have at least 3 friends and even more guys that I know that are using these types of stoves to heat their homes.
Jotul, Vogelzang, Woodstock Soapstones, etc are some of them that I know of. 
As my comments above on page two indicate, I have the same stove that Whitespider tried and is so dissatisfied with. It has been heating my ENTIRE 2100 S.Q. house for a lot of years, so I KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM WORK.
So I cannot agree that they are ALL junk and that the EPA fireboxes as they are being called dont make heat and do it efficiently.
My experiences and those of some close friends tell me otherwise.

Ron


----------



## Cerran (Jan 17, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> You have zero friggin' idea what you're talkin' about Del_.
> Where in the hell does it say in the manual that it's _"designed to heat a small insulated house"_ and not a _"drafty open shop"_??
> Besides, I already explained, it ain't a _"drafty open shop"_, it's a small two-stall garage (I use for a shop), not much bigger than my friggin' living room for cripes sake‼
> It's a heater man... it either heats or it don't.
> ...



Which would seem to indicate something is wrong with the specific stove you have. Are you sure everything is assembled right and that something isn't working as it should?

The EPA numbers versus the real world cordwood numbers are legitimate measures:

1) The EPA number is based on the specified EPA test procedure which calls out the size/type of the load of wood to be used

2) The cordwood number is what you get with the stove on high fire and loaded to the brim with seasoned cordwood

http://chimneysweeponline.com/wscomp8.htm


----------



## naturelover (Jan 17, 2014)

.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 17, 2014)

Cerran said:


> *Which would seem to indicate something is wrong with the specific stove you have. Are you sure everything is assembled right and that something isn't working as it should?*



Well... never say never... but I don't see anything out's place.
I've checked, double checked, triple checked, and more all the air passages and draft control linkages.
I've had the baffle out several times, it's clean... holes are open.
I replaced all the fire brick with a pre-cut set directly from Pacific Energy.
The ash clean out door shuts tight... don't leak.
When the secondary burn engages it shoots jets of flame into the firebox... a regular damn firestorm in there unless I cut the draft back to somewhere in the "normal" range.
During secondary burn the only thing exiting the chimney is heat waves.
The box ain't warped, cracked or twisted.
And yup... the firewood is well seasoned... the stuff I've been burning lately in it is three-year-old hard maple... and I've tried all different sizes of splits.

Really, when the secondary is active it heats like a Banshee... but it's short lived, like an hour, two if you're lucky with a full load of oak.
It just don't extract any heat once the secondary shuts down, and it leaves a deep bed of coals that just lay there (just think how many coals a full load of oak would make in a couple hours). I mean, even 2, 3, 4 hours later the coals are still laying there, covered with a little ash... you can stick your hand in the box and hold it there for several seconds before it even starts getting uncomfortable. Stir them coals up and the get screamin' hot... for maybe a minute, two if your lucky... then back to little or nothin'. They just ain't gettin' enough air to burn; and if ya' just walk away for a day, you'll come back to a pile of ash and un-burnt charcoal... the top third ash, the bottom two-thirds un-burnt charcoal. Heck, I've even found half-burnt splits buried in the charcoal.

Thanks for askin'... kind'a nice... it's the first time someone has considered there may be something wrong with the stove, instead of something wrong with the way I installed or use it.
*


----------



## MountainHigh (Jan 17, 2014)

If I build another house, I will design and build it around a largest Cat stove like the Blaze King/King (8" thimble) and some radiant heat storage potential like a central chimney! That stove is one ugly mother, but very efficient and has some of the longest burn times.

In my 50+ years wood burning experience your *CHIMNEY is the MOTOR of your Stove!* People with the same stove can have varying experiences because different chimney types and lengths, all SUCK completely differently! Additionally, each location has varying degrees of air movement and air pressure that can affect the ability of any chimney to pull well with any given stove.

I have a two story home with an awesome CENTRAL Brick and Tile lined chimney, (6" thimble going into 6X10" flue) - that once up to temp, sucks well and stays warm providing oodles of radiant heat for hours and hours onto 2 floors - BUT - because it is not standard 6" round steel flue that these EPA stoves DEMAND (Blaze King/King wants 8" flue), getting the CHIMNEY up to temp takes more work and time for the more efficient EPA stoves, and if not careful, my EPA stove can back puff when loading new wood too soon.

My old fire breathing dragon didn't have any back puff issues (because they are not as efficient) but there was also more soot to clean and less heat in the home because it didn't have a secondary burn. I tried 2 different EPA models and settled on this PE Summit - it was the most forgiving of our oversize Chimey flue and cranks out the heat when I want it- burn times on my chimney are not that long - maybe 8 hours to coals at best, if I craft my wood load thoughtfully / couple sticks of super dry on base, then big pieces of dry Hardwood on top. These EPA stoves demand dry well seasoned wood - *forget about using green*.
.
If you are using 6" steel chimney, there are many good EPA stoves that will provide long lasting heat, but if you are using an existing different sized flue, get ready for some experimentation.

Best of luck.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 17, 2014)

Did you ever measure your stovetop temps during the coaling stage?

A typical burn cycle of the 30, using less than ideal wood. I expect better results when the oak dries, but now its on maple and poplar, with a little bit of dried oak I have to mix in.

From a cold start.

Load north/south in the stove with a firestarter.

Leave door open until its good and established, this may take a while. Can't shut these EPA stoves off too soon, has to be some wood charred and burning well or you'll smother it. As was said above, these stoves are VERY dependent on draft conditions.

Shut door, with air still wide open. Don't leave unattended, or you may come back to an amazing fire show and a glowing red stove.

Temps climb to around 400 stovetop, then you can start shutting it down. Sometimes I can damp it down to the cruise position, sometimes it has to be done in stages till it gets to 500 or so. Secondaries have already, or are in the process of, kicking in.

Temps climb to 550-650 and usually stay steady there when the stove is damped down. Sometimes I'll get 'er to climb to 700 or so (depending on the stove, this may be a little too hot, but has been said this is a pretty normal temp for the 30). It'll usually stay this way for around 2.5 hours, though I expect to be able to stay here longer with some good oak, I'd say 3-4 would be easy to obtain.

Secondary stage ends, temps fall to around 450.

As it coals, temps slowly fall from 450 to 250, during this time, the air control can be pulled to fully open, depending on what the fire looks like.

This stage usually takes a few hours. When it gets to 250 or so, time to reload. Sometimes I rake the coals forward during the coaling stage, sometimes before a reload. They will burn down a little better if you rake them forward during the coaling stage.

After a few runs with it, I can now pretty much look at the fire and tell what I need to do, but its nice to be able to read the temps.

One thing about these stoves is that you need a large enough stove to get enough wood in it so it can stay on the secondaries long enough to heat the area, and the coaling stage keeps it there. The more wood you can stuff in there, the more coals you will have to keep the stove hotter, for longer, during the coaling stage. These EPA stoves cycle like this unlike a smoke dragon, as you can usually keep feeding a smoke dragon wood earlier in the coaling stage to maintain more constant temps.

Without some experience, doing that with an EPA stove will likely overfire it, too much off-gassing at once.

All that said with my 4 months experience with an EPA stove. YMMV... 

However, I'd think that stove should put out much more heat than that little gas stove you show...


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 17, 2014)

OH‼ Hell no Del_‼
Obviously I'll screw it all up and he won't be able to heat the dog house with it‼


----------



## Oxford (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, if you did, it would doubtless be somebody else's fault.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 17, 2014)

Back to OP topic what Epa stove will bridge the gap between my situation and spiders. Spider wants no part of modern stoves, we need to be cautions because we currently do not have wood cut ahead but do have a unlimited supply of timber in the neighbourhood. My wife and 96 year old great grandma have been burning wood here on he farm since 1950, I did not start until the seventies. We have a history of cutting during the winter months and have not yet learned the virtues of ageing or seasoning the wood. We have nothing against the practice, just have not been in the rhythm. We ask the question which EPA stove will not leave us cold if our wood is not perfect. I am getting older and my wife, and great grandma do help gather wood any more. The Joutul, and and Englander are on my short list. I see the virtue in modern engineering but some of us must move forward slowly. My first winters wood was cut and spit with a axe. My second and third winters wood was harvested with a bow saw. We now have many saws mauls and a splitter, we have come a long way.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 17, 2014)

naturelover said:


> Did you ever measure your stovetop temps during the coaling stage?
> 
> A typical burn cycle of the 30, using less than ideal wood. I expect better results when the oak dries, but now its on maple and poplar, with a little bit of dried oak I have to mix in.
> 
> ...


WE are burning one year old oak tops. There has been a lot of logging going on in the neighbourhood. These tops are starting to rot but still are some what green would fuel like this work in your stove. We do split the wood very fine. The neighbours tease me for making cook wood.


----------



## flotek (Jan 17, 2014)

I would then recommend a nc30 Englander or a drolet ht2000


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 17, 2014)

flotek said:


> I would then recommend a nc30 Englander or a drolet ht2000


Tell me about the Drolet ht2000 is a large secondary combuston stove.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, that would be dependent upon the moisture content. I know spidey doesn't really like the gadget, but the little moisture meter from lowes will tell you with somewhat reason how dry the wood is. I try to keep it around 20% or less on a freshly split face, and the stove seems to do pretty well on that.

I did stuff a load of mostly green in there, and I had to leave the door open to get it to burn. It still heated though, and if you can find some dry wood, pallets, or even some of those pre-formed logs to mix in there, you should be able to get some heat out of it.

I was like you, I had an old Warm Morning 520 coal stove in the garage to begin with, and I could do the same, let it season over summer and it'd burn it. I had to run it nearly half open though on the air inlet to get it to heat with the green wood. But it was working well enough, and my chimney stayed clean too, cause I had to run it so hot to get it to heat the garage. It was getting bad though, and the sides were rusting out, so it was time to replace it.

These EPA stoves are a little more picky. They won't burn that well with green or wet wood, because of the temperature you have to reach within the firebox to re-burn the secondary gases. On top of that, most people report that their flue temps are lower in an EPA stove than with a smoke dragon, which can exasperate creosote buildup with green wood.

As has been stated, the draft on these are important too. Too much draft and it will always run too hot and you won't be able to control it (usually getting around 800 stovetop for the Englander), or not enough and it won't burn well or at all. Too much draft may be able to be fixed with some blocking off of the air inlets on the stove with some magnets and such, and too low a draft may require some chimney rework.

There is also a catalytic converter stove, don't have experience with these though, but am thinking it may be a little more even heat than a secondary burn stove. But then you get into having to buy catalytic converters for it after a few years, and I don't believe they can produce the brute force heat of a secondary stove.

All this not to scare you away from an EPA stove, but mainly so you don't get too discouraged if you can't get it to burn correctly right away. While not as easy as my old 520 to run, it is a pretty easy learning curve. 

I researched my purchase for a bit beforehand, and there is a lot of information on the Interwebs for these newfangled EPA stoves.

I picked the 30 because it's looks to be a well built stove for the price, the great reviews of the stove itself, and reading of how good its customer service was, and for its large firebox size. Also made in the USA, which is nice.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 17, 2014)

naturelover said:


> Did you ever measure your stovetop temps during the coaling stage?
> One thing about these stoves is that you need a large enough stove to get enough wood in it so it can stay on the secondaries long enough to heat the area, and the coaling stage keeps it there. The more wood you can stuff in there, the more coals you will have to keep the stove hotter, for longer, during the coaling stage. These EPA stoves cycle like this unlike a smoke dragon, as you can usually keep feeding a smoke dragon wood earlier in the coaling stage to maintain more constant temps...



We have always been concerned about buying one of these new small stoves. If the stove is to large put a small load in it and wait for it to heat. If the stove is to small get the blankets out. It is like saw's if you can only have one it must be the big one.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 18, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Tell me about the Drolet ht2000 is a large secondary combuston stove.



I got one a year ago, almost exactly. I'm happy with it, and would recommend it. There are a few things that bug me a little, read some of my reviews toward the end of the thread. I apologize for the missing pictures due to the forum hack, the originals are long since deleted, or I'd try to restore them.

http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/the-time-has-come.223471/

If you've got any specific HT2000 questions, you can ask me in that thread or send me a message. I'll be happy to answer. I had it narrowed down to the two mentioned, this and the NC30. It boiled down to the 2000 being in stock locally vs special order for the NC 30. I don't think Mill's Fleet Farm gets as far south as you, but they're in stock at my local FF for $999, just walked by em yesterday.

It's fair at burning less than fully seasoned wood - not great, but fair. Most of my wood is 1-2 years seasoned, but I did burn a bit off the green pile just to see what'd happen. I'd say not much difference than my old smoke dragon. Once the firebox is hot, it'll go. It's getting it up to temp with green wood that's difficult. Having dry stuff to get a good fire going helps.

From what I've read - and I'm no expert, the catalytic stove have a harder time with green wood, plugged cats, premature failures from steam hitting the hot cat, etc., but this may not apply to all cat stoves. Honestly, except for used ones, they were out of my budget. Used came in two flavors when I was looking: Little bitty cabin stoves, or wore-slap-out units that someone was trying to wring a few more bucks back out of. Neither interested me. If you've got time to spend a summer searching CL and local shopper papers, your luck might be better.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 18, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> *It is like saw's it you can only have one it must be the big one.*



Uh-oh...


----------



## flotek (Jan 18, 2014)

The nc 30 is a quality stove but the looks are utilitarian the drolet is similar in many respects .. but more aesthetically pleasing to the eye


----------



## blacklocst (Jan 18, 2014)

I have a Jotul 600 and it recommends throwing in two sticks at a time instead of loading it up, I noticed that I can keep the stove in the 450 to 550 a degree range with no problem and coaling is never an issue. Have you tried running the stove this way Spidy?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 18, 2014)

Yeah blacklocst, I have, and it will keep heating better and longer... and it takes a lot longer to build up that nasty coal bed.
But... not tryin' to be a PITA, just being honest... that don't work for me, at least most of the time it don't.
Again... not tryin' to be a PITA, just being honest... let me give you a scenario...

Let's say I'm gonna' head out and cut a little wood this morning for a few hours (it's 12° out there). Well, when I come back out'a the woodlot 5 hours from now I'd like to have a warm shop to strip off my wet, heavy, cold weather cloths, clean up the saw and equipment, dry my gloves, thaw out my boots, back the little tractor in so it can melt off, maybe have a beer or two and sharpen the chains, etc. So I wanna' get a fire going that will warm up the shop, and keep it that way until I get back in. See, I won't be there to keep adding 2 or 3 splits every hour or two, I won't be there to stir the coals, I won't be there to keep adjusting the draft control as the fire burns down... basically, I won't be there to "babysit" the stove, I can't "babysit" the stove even if I did want to. I need to be able to get a fire goin', load up the firebox, set the draft control-flue damper-whatever, and walk away for 4, 5, maybe 6 hours. And this box just flat won't allow that... I have to be continuously screwing' around with it to keep it running and heating.

See where I'm coming from?? If it won't heat at a (relatively) high and steady rate it's pretty much worthless to me... it's just a waste of firewood for me to even start a fire because a hour (or two at best) after I leave it the rate of heating drops so low the shop actually starts cooling back off. By the time I get back it'll be back down to 15° or 20° in there. Forget that starting at 12° it will take a good 1½ - 2½ hours at a (relatively) high rate of heating just to get the shop up to... say... 65°. Well, if I ain't there to "babysit" it... ain't no sense even starting it, just a waste of good firewood.

That's why I said I'll just go back to a barrel stove in there... man, a barrel stove would have that shop at 85° in about an hour or so if ya' really crank 'em up. But fill 'em up, choke 'em back a little, and 5 hours later (when I get back to the shop) it would easily be 65°-70° (or more) in there... and still be heating. Sure, a barrel uses a lot of wood... but, using what I have now just flat wastes wood.
*


----------



## oldspark (Jan 18, 2014)

It looks like the Drolet would have been a better choice for me, way less money with a little bigger firebox, heat rating is a little lower but those numbers are pulled out of their ass any way.
Not sure why you guys mess with green wood.


----------



## naturelover (Jan 18, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah blacklocst, I have, and it will keep heating better and longer... and it takes a lot longer to build up that nasty coal bed.
> But... not tryin' to be a PITA, just being honest... that don't work for me, at least most of the time it don't.
> Again... not tryin' to be a PITA, just being honest... let me give you a scenario...
> 
> ...



You needed a bigger EPA stove.....





Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oxford (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm not really sure you need to try to be a PITA. So tell me again how the stove doesn't work? Sounds to me like if you actually operate it like you're supposed to it works just fine, giving out good heat because it stays in secondary burn, because the fuel load is appropriate to the size of the firebox and the air is matched to the stage. When you slug it overfull and walk away, not so much. I know that you only say things you agree that you've said, not that you've actually said, but how does this match with your rantings about gettin' no heat and bein' able to just stick your hand in the firebox above those worthless coals? Just this morning, you were grateful that somebody gave you an out that the stove was broken, because you'd done just everything to get it to work and nothing did. Now, it sounds like you're able to make it work no problem, it just requires more involvement than you're willing- or able- to have.


----------



## Chris-PA (Jan 18, 2014)

A barrel stove holds how much wood?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 18, 2014)

Oxford said:


> *Sounds to me like if you actually operate it like you're supposed to it works just fine, giving out good heat because it stays in secondary burn...*



Oh... I see... so I do have to "babysit" the stove... that's normal... that the way it's supposed to work. I have to sit there by it and feed it 15 minutes worth of fuel at a time, constantly adjusting the draft, raking coals, and making damn sure the secondary never shuts down. I was under the impression that the secondary burn only around one third of the burn cycle... stupid me, now you teach me it's 100% of the burn cycle and it only last for an hour or so. Yep, stupid me... what was I thinking.

I need to put 2 or 3 little splits in there, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits,open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits,open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits, open the draft to get them going, wait 5 and close the draft a bit, wait 5 and open the draft a little, wait 5 and rake coals forward, add 2 or 3 little splits.........

So, when is it exactly I have a life somewhere other than sitting right next to the stove??
When do I get a little shut-eye... or does burning wood for heat mean I only get to sleep 4½ minutes at a time??
And where in the hell does it say that's how I'm supposed to operate the stove anyway??
Here, let me quote the manual for you...

1. Adjust air control to position H (maximum firing rate)
and open door.
2. Place crumpled newspaper in the centrer of the heater
and criss-cross with several pieces of dry kindling. 
Add a few small pieces of dry wood on top.
3. Ignite the paper and close the door.
4. After the fire has established itself, open the door and
add a few small logs. Close door.
5. Begin normal operation after a good coal base exists
and wood has charred.
NORMAL OPERATION
1. Set air control to a desired setting. If smoke pours
down across the glass (waterfall effect) this indicates
you have shut the control down too soon or you are
using too low a setting. The wide range control panel
makes finding the desired setting for your application
easy. As every home's heating needs vary (ie. insu-
lation, windows, climate, etc.) the proper setting can
only be found by trial and error and should be noted
for future burns.
2. To refuel, adjust air control to high, and give the fire
time to brighten. Open the door slowly, this will prevent
backpuffing.
3. Use wood of different shape, diameter and length (up
to 18"). Load your wood endwise and try to place the
logs so that the air can flow between them. Always
use dry wood.
4. Do not load fuel to a height or in such a manner that
would be hazardous when opening the door.
5. For extended or overnight burns, unsplit logs are
preferred. Remember to char the wood completely
on maximum setting before adjusting air control for
overnight burn.



Oxford said:


> *I know that you only say things you agree that you've said, not that you've actually said how does this match with your rantings about gettin' no heat and bein' able to just stick your hand in the firebox above those worthless coals? ...sounds like you're able to make it work no problem, it just requires more involvement than you're willing- or able- to have.*



Yeah... no problem spending every waking (and sleeping) moment of my life withing three minutes of the stove 
Listen putz... you're the only one here scrambling, mixing 'n' matching, and manipulating words... taking 'em out'a context.
I've stated all along that the damn thing STOPS HEATING WHEN THE SECONDARY STOPS... and with box half full of coals and I can lay my hand on the stove top‼ (and I've stated that several times in the past) Even feeding it small amounts of wood at a time IT WILL STILL FILL WITH COALS, it just takes longer. I ain't going back on anything I've said... and I ain't denying anything I've said.

But... I'll tell you this...
If the above is what "works"... if that normal... if that's how "they" work... if that's what's required to make 'em work...
Than only a total blithering idiot fool would own one. So if that's how yours works... well take it from there...


----------



## naturelover (Jan 18, 2014)

There isn't any point in the burn cycle of my 30 that I can lay my hand on top of the stove. It never gets below 250 stovetop once it gets started.

If you decide, I'd be getting an el-cheapo infrared thermometer or a magnetic flue thermometer, and place it near the center of the stove (best placed in front of the step on the 30) to get some temps during the burn cycle.


----------



## stihl sawing (Jan 18, 2014)

You won't be banned but you will receive a warning with points toward a ban. I don't have a clue what the argument is about but there will be no language as you just posted. Another post like that and it will be some time off.


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 18, 2014)

There is no point in my Pacific Energies burn cycle that I can lay my hand on top of the stove......without getting burned seriously.
The coal bed can be burned down quite low and the stove is still hot.
Something sounds very fishy.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 18, 2014)

stihl sawing,
Understood... no complaints.


----------



## stihl sawing (Jan 18, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> stihl sawing,
> Understood... no complaints.


Good, Thank you.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 18, 2014)

Ronaldo said:


> *Something sounds very fishy.*



*L-O-L*... Heck, I ain't ever even cooked fish on that stove... but I might try burnin' some in it.
*


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 18, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> *L-O-L*... Heck, I ain't ever even cooked fish on that stove... but I might try burnin' some in it.
> *


Make sure it is well seasoned--------at least one year or it wont do well in these new stoves. Ha Ha Ha Sorry, I couldnt help myself!


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 18, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Over at the other forum there was some raving going on about Blaze King. May want to look.


I think if time goes on long enough I will buy a blazeking just to see what all the raving is about. They get twenty four hour burns, we get two hour burns when it is cold!!


----------



## stihl sawing (Jan 18, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> I think if time goes on long enough I will buy a blazeking just to see what all the raving is about. They get twenty four hour burns,* we get two hour burns when it is cold!*!


Yikes, Our Vermont will go about 7 to 8 hours on a good fill up.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 18, 2014)

stihl sawing said:


> Yikes, Our Vermont will go about 7 to 8 hours on a good fill up.


It is good thing we do not live up north. Our house is draftier then spiders garage.


----------



## stihl sawing (Jan 18, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> It is good thing we do not live up north. Our house is draftier then spiders garage.


Yeah same here, my house would not survive the northern part of the country.


----------



## woodchuck357 (Jan 18, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> I've got a question.
> 
> It isn't meant to take any sides in this Battle-Royale going on here, but might be quite relevant to the original thread topic.
> 
> ...


I haven't read even most of the posts in this thread, so someone may have brought it up before but here goes: The stoves are tested for EPA compliance with kiln dried pine LUMBER. They don't test with firewood.
Seriously, the 72,000 figure is the probably total BTU tied up in the wood and the 36,600 is the heat that gets into the room.


----------



## woodchuck357 (Jan 18, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Back to OP topic what Epa stove will bridge the gap between my situation and spiders. Spider wants no part of modern stoves, we need to be cautions because we currently do not have wood cut ahead but do have a unlimited supply of timber in the neighbourhood. My wife and 96 year old great grandma have been burning wood here on he farm since 1950, I did not start until the seventies. We have a history of cutting during the winter months and have not yet learned the virtues of ageing or seasoning the wood. We have nothing against the practice, just have not been in the rhythm. We ask the question which EPA stove will not leave us cold if our wood is not perfect. I am getting older and my wife, and great grandma do help gather wood any more. The Joutul, and and Englander are on my short list. I see the virtue in modern engineering but some of us must move forward slowly. My first winters wood was cut and spit with a axe. My second and third winters wood was harvested with a bow saw. We now have many saws mauls and a splitter, we have come a long way.


If you are burning wood that has not had time to dry you are going to need a stove with at least part of the air supply coming in under the fire, some models of either brand will do the job. I would go with a stove that is set up with outside air ducted to the stove if possible, there will be less drafts and heating efficiency will be enhanced. I also like a grate with a separate door for the ash pan.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 19, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> *...we get two hour burns when it is cold!!*



I'd be ecstatic with a 2-hour-burn... if it would heat for 2-hours 

Seriously though, I agree with stihl sawing... *YIKES‼*
In the boxes I've used over the years (non-EPA type) I haven't noticed that the amount of wood increases burn time all that much, but the type of wood does. Loading them with more wood just makes more heat over the same length of time (at comparable stove settings); loading them with oak, rather than pine, adds several hours burn time. Burn times shorten when it gets cold out; not because it's cold out, but because the user sets the controls for a more "robust" fire... you're extracting heat at a faster rate.

We've been burning mostly hard maple in the furnace for the past 6 weeks or so. It don't matter if I toss in 4 or 5 splits on a 30° day, or fill the box to the gills on a 0° day, we go about 7 hours between re-loads... oak will give me 8+ hours, elm around 6 hours. But that draft blower will eat some wood in a hurry, like a full load of that hard maple in 3 hours if I screw up and let the house cool down too much... but man does it make heat‼ As long as I load the box before bed the draft blower don't run much, just a little in the morning. But if I do what I did last night, which is fall asleep before loading the box... it's 61° in here this morning and that draft blower is working overtime to bring the house up to 71°. Still, when I think about it, the amount of total wood burned don't change all that much... I mean, not much difference between loading it once last night and once this morning, or loading it twice this morning (shrug).
*


----------



## Bushmans (Jan 19, 2014)

You guys can have all that EPA/CAT stuff. I'm gun shy on all of it since I've joined here.
Expensive, have to replace parts, have to fiddle with things.
I love my old stove. Efficient? I'm told no. For my requirements? Good enough.

I was always curious about ratios on the burns though.

For instance, last night around 9 pm I loaded the stove. I had a great bed of coals already established. The house was at 72 degrees. I placed 2 splits (5" average) of three year old ash left to right then I placed two more on top of those fore and aft with a slight angle because the box isn't deep enough and then I placed a top piece on that. My top piece is usually the split off the side of the log that is around 8/9" wide but only 2" thick.
I cracked the doors open, opened the inline flue damper to full and let her rip till I had some killer flames going. Closed the doors, shut the damper and opened the air flow dials on the doors to just over 1/4 turn and walked away.
This morning I awoke and as usual the first thing I do is check the thermostat in the hallway right outside my bedroom door. 74 degrees at 6am. (I slept in)
"Nice", I thought to myself. I went downstairs to feed the dogs and let them out and while they were doing their business I opened the doors to a still fairly decent bed of coals. I stirred them up but did not put anymore wood on it. 74 is good enough for me. The fan was still running and blowing out warm air. It is set on a snap disc thermostat control so the steel was still putting out good heat. The coals were glowing well enough that should I have put a few splits on there they would have caught fire within a few minutes. The temps went down to 9 last night with a 3 mph wind. 
That is around 9 hours of heat off 5 splits.

Now tell me what would a "smart" stove have done in this instance. I know you can't nail it down but you have the temps, the wood species, the hours. The house was built in 1980, bi-level with crappy windows that I have plastic over. Average insulation.
Again I am not a hater because I can't be without experience, just skeptical is all!

Would I have had a longer burn time?
Would I have had more heat? Temp would have been 76 instead of 74?
Could I have done that with 3 splits instead of 5?


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 19, 2014)

Bushmans said:


> *Now tell me what would a "smart" stove have done in this instance.
> ...I am... just skeptical is all!*



*Would I have had a longer burn time?*
Going off my experience, using only one "smart" stove (extensively)... the answer is *NO‼*

*Would I have had more heat?*
Going off my experience, using only one "smart" stove (extensively)... the answer is *NO‼*

*Temp would have been 76 instead of 74?*
Going off my experience, using only one "smart" stove (extensively)... the answer is *NO‼*

*Could I have done that with 3 splits instead of 5?*
Going off my experience, using only one "smart" stove (extensively)... the answer is *NO‼
*
Going off my experience, using only one "smart" stove (extensively) ... you'd have been cold this morning, and likely quite pizzed-off.
Skepticism is a good thing; always question when the words "newer" and "better" are used in the same sentence, or claim... ain't nothin' automatic about a relationship between the two (same goes for "older" and "better"). Everything is a trade-off to some certain degree; to gain something, you must give up something... and that is something you can always count on. It's never a matter of "better"... it's a matter of if what you gain, is worth more to you than what you give up.
*


----------



## Oxford (Jan 19, 2014)

Well, I would say that depends.

On the one hand, if you took the time to research the proper stove for your application, including consultation with an actual dealer (!) or manufacturer (!!) in order to match the output of the stove to your application, and then spent the money to properly install and operate it, I would say that chances are very good that your home would be equally comfortable on less fuel, and you would probably pollute less in the bargain, as the experience of several members here would suggest.

On the other hand, if your research consists of answering the question "What will somebody GIVE me?" and you then install it with your own modifications and operate it by your own sequence of operation, apparently revealed on stone tablets on the banks of the Cedar River, which combination turns out to not satisfy your every desire, then you will have ample opportunity for whinin' and moanin' about those no-good EPA stoves and the government parasites that spawned them. As a happy coincidence, this might fit some carefully held and nurtured beliefs, which will doubtless be written on the inside of a tinfoil hat. Also a happy coincidence: you can then spin the whole experience, in a wonderfully bombastic style best described as Proudly Ignorant but Completely Infallible, to make people skeptical of proven technology. After all, those reputable companies who design and build stoves and the dealers who stake their livelihoods on them are fully committed to the business model of making and selling equipment that doesn't work. 

Stand by for outraged BS in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1........


----------



## NSMaple1 (Jan 19, 2014)

I hate to break it to you guys, but it has been proven time & time again, emperically & emphatically, that it is impossible to Win The Internets......


----------



## sunfish (Jan 19, 2014)

Bushmans said:


> You guys can have all that EPA/CAT stuff. I'm gun shy on all of it since I've joined here.
> Expensive, have to replace parts, have to fiddle with things.
> I love my old stove. Efficient? I'm told no. For my requirements? Good enough.


This is the reason I wanted and got a Jotul, no cat or refractory to replace. Just a door gasket that might need replacing at some point (it's fine after 6 years). Also very simple air control & the 118CB I have works just like the old stoves, but has secondary burn air that can be used if wanted, or not used.


----------



## Oxford (Jan 19, 2014)

Sunfish,

Do you use that secondary air?


----------



## sunfish (Jan 19, 2014)

Oxford said:


> Sunfish,
> 
> Do you use that secondary air?


Not often, only when we need the extra heat. Get longer burn times & less heat with it closed. Stove is a bit too large for our house.


----------



## blacklocst (Jan 19, 2014)

stihl sawing said:


> You won't be banned but you will receive a warning with points toward a ban. I don't have a clue what the argument is about but there will be no language as you just posted. Another post like that and it will be some time off.


Instead of banning Whitespider he should be required to preface everything he posts with IMHO.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 19, 2014)

sunfish said:


> Not often, only when we need the extra heat. Get longer burn times & less heat with it closed. Stove is a bit too large for our house.


The Jotul appears to bridge the gap between old school and modern stoves. There was a guy on the a stove forum that had nothing good to say about Jotul because he had a casting crack and it was going to take a week to get the parts the costumer service department did not want to help him.


----------



## kodiak (Jan 19, 2014)

Oxford said:


> Well, I would say that depends.
> 
> On the one hand, if you took the time to research the proper stove for your application, including consultation with an actual dealer (!) or manufacturer (!!) in order to match the output of the stove to your application, and then spent the money to properly install and operate it, I would say that chances are very good that your home would be equally comfortable on less fuel, and you would probably pollute less in the bargain, as the experience of several members here would suggest.
> 
> ...


Friggin' GOLD!!


----------



## sunfish (Jan 19, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> The Jotul appears to bridge the gap between old school and modern stoves. There was a guy on the a stove forum that had nothing good to say about Jotul because he had a casting crack and it was going to take a week to get the parts the costumer service department did not want to help him.


Very rare to hear a complaint about Jotul, but not everyone is going to be happy with every product. My next stove will be a Jotul and this one will spend the rest of it's years in my shop.


----------



## sunfish (Jan 19, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I don't get the mentality that would make light of higher efficiency wood heating. Even though the wood I burn is a by product of my tree biz, I still benefit greatly from the reduce labor and storage area running higher efficiency brings. I believe this is our Jotul F600CB's tenth season.
> 
> I know three people within a 1/2 mile radius of me that burn stoves similar to yours. Two of their chimneys I can see from my back yard and I often compare the smoke output of our stoves. To see them send so much energy up their chimneys as smoke seems like such a waste.
> 
> ...


Nice photo man! 

Jotul is very efficient, I'm burning half the wood with mine than I was with a Vermont Casting we had before...


----------



## Bushmans (Jan 19, 2014)

Del. Dont get me wrong. I am not making light of higher efficiency burning. I was serious in my questioning. I do not have access to unlimited wood. Less wood burnt is time and energy saved.
I hear just as many bad thing as good on these stoves. You can not blame me for being skeptical. 
I would hate to spend a couple Gs on a stove and have it heat just the same as the one I have but save me only a small amount of wood. 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 19, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *In this forum 90% or so of the negative comments are coming from one person...*



And your point is??
Throughout history, without fail, the minority has been right... the majority has been wrong.
Show me where I'm wrong... 
*


----------



## flotek (Jan 19, 2014)

My grandpa used to say :A man convinced against his will. .. Is of the same opinion still ! 
Some guys despite being shown every benefit and advantage will insist they are better off with a barrel stove then a new efficient unit . There is such a thing as being " willingly ignorant "


----------



## Bushmans (Jan 19, 2014)

sunfish said:


> This is the reason I wanted and got a Jotul, no cat or refractory to replace. Just a door gasket that might need replacing at some point (it's fine after 6 years). Also very simple air control & the 118CB I have works just like the old stoves, but has secondary burn air that can be used if wanted, or not used.



Now that is something I would be interested in. I remember the thread about the guy who built his own burn tubes. That was a very interesting thread. I would love to have that in my stove. I am very careful about the amount of smoke that comes out of my chimney. There is a happy spot on my stove where it gets just the right amount of air and will burn beautifully for several hours without much smoke. After it burns down it holds those giant cherry coals for a long time and they put off great heat with almost zero smoke.




Oxford said:


> On the other hand, if your research consists of answering the question "What will somebody GIVE me?" and you then install it with your own modifications and operate it by your own sequence of operation, apparently revealed on stone tablets on the banks of the Cedar River, which combination turns out to not satisfy your every desire, then you will have ample opportunity for whinin' and moanin' about those no-good EPA stoves and the government parasites that spawned them. As a happy coincidence, this might fit some carefully held and nurtured beliefs, which will doubtless be written on the inside of a tinfoil hat. Also a happy coincidence: you can then spin the whole experience, in a wonderfully bombastic style best described as Proudly Ignorant but Completely Infallible, to make people skeptical of proven technology. After all, those reputable companies who design and build stoves and the dealers who stake their livelihoods on them are fully committed to the business model of making and selling equipment that doesn't work.



I've been on AS for a few years now and I have read tons and tons of info on burning wood.
Anyways back to the topic at hand. I simply asked a question about comparative results which I believe would lend a bit of information to the OP original request.
I did not ask to be placed into the war at which a few are engaged in. Just because I questioned something does not make me a non believer. Sheesh if I just agreed to everything I read I would probably be dead already.
I don't do anything without a ton of research first. This stove I have is all I could afford and has saved me lots of dough already. 

I have read many threads where folks have had to replace their cats and the price is not cheap. If you have to do that every once in a while it seems as though the cost savings in fuel just went out the door. 
Wood is relatively cheap compared to propane and if I had to buy all my wood every year I would still be ahead of the game.
There comes a point in every wood burners life where it just flat out becomes "not worth it"!
This is the info I look for. At what point does it all even out?
I cut wood with a MS391. Is it worth it to switch to a bigger saw because I can cut wood faster hence saving fuel and time? For my application......no I don't believe so.

And pollution? Oh man don't get me started on that. I am a responsible burner and what comes out of my flue is diddly squat compared to the black smoke that belches out of every darn semi truck taking off from a stop light.

Anyways I'm not trying to pick a fight. I certainly don't want to get in the middle of the existing one although I find it entertaining and informative.

Just information is all I'm after.


----------



## Eric Modell (Jan 19, 2014)

sunfish said:


> Nice photo man!
> 
> *Jotul is very efficient, I'm burning half the wood with mine than I was with a Vermont Casting we had before...*



Are you boasting or really burning half, because that is a huge improvement.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 19, 2014)

My grandpa used to say; _"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers."_
*


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 19, 2014)

Bushmans:
Get a properly sized EPA non-cat or a older version and you should be alright. I have many of the issues that White Spider has mentioned running my P.E. T6. It's a fine stove and puts off good heat as long as I'm here to monitor and adjust it as req'd and when the secondary burn is active. If either of the previous caveats are not met, it annoys me. I run a 6" double wall 4 total 45 degree bends and around 30-35' of pipe. If I run it any faster than it likes, or it's really cold out it coals badly, loses heat and is a PITA. I burn 1-2yr seasoned hard wood, generally split to cook wood size. As mentioned earlier, if you run it the way it likes and are there to babysit it, it's great. my burn times run from 1.5-3hrs depending on the load and wood-type. Do I regret the purchase? No. Would I have bought a Jotul Black Bear had I known wht I know now? Yes. I also might have considered an OWB or an older-style heatilator style stove. If you want a lot of heat with an EPA by a 3cuft box or bigger and you'll get it. Either way, outside of OWB's, stoves are considered zone-heaters. A bigger one may suffice as a whole house heater, but that is not their intended function. Mine works as a whole house heater when it's above 30. Less than that and it's supplemental to my Propane forced air. I will likely end up installing a Black Bear to augment my P.E. on the opposite end of the house simply because for me, it's much more economical than the alternatives. I'd love to have an airtight, solid house, but that's somewhere around a 20-30k proposition for me right now and not an option. I'll get there eventually, but it'll be a decade or two. Depending on your house's efficiency, size, stove location, etc if you're over 2000sqft and not perfectly insulated, get a 3cuft box or bigger, EPA or not and you should be alright. If you're smaller or have a darn tight house, you might be ok with a bit less. I'll get flamed with this post no doubt, from the technology advocates, but this is based off of my experience and observations. 

FWIW, a good friend has a VC Defiant catalytic stove. He burns Hedge, Oak and Ash. He's heating a 5 year old home that he built, which is insulated well-beyond code. He also has a half open floor-plan on the ground floor. That thing will run you out of the family/dining (informal and formal both) and kitchen rooms which are around 800-ish sqft total and capably heats the other 700sqft upstairs. The basement is always cold, unless the other heater is running. A load of Hedge (already up and running) will last 4-6 hours once the cat is activated. He's replaced the cat once in this time. He also has triple pane windows and very good doors. In his application, it works quite well. In my house, I would likely have greatly different results. Trying to be honest and fair on all sides. I like the efficiency of my stove (except for the coals I'm throwing out) and love watching the secondary burn, which is near idiot-proof. Either way wood is nearly free to me so while efficiency is a concern, it's relative especially when compared to the cost of propane. I will NOT have an EPA stove in the Barn. I will likely continue to run EPA stoves in the house, but the next one will be a Jotul. 

I apologize for the novel, but I think that my experience is relative to your question and wanted to get all of the pertinent background info out there to avoid gratuitous flaming.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Jan 19, 2014)

My buddy's VC eats less wood for the same heat than my P.E consumes, but that is more of a function of the cat. I don't think his stove puts out that much more heat than mine, BUT his house allows much less cold air in to mitigate the gains than mine does so it _feels _like his puts out more.


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 19, 2014)

Bushmans,
It sounds like you have a pretty efficient stove and would not find a great deal of improvement in a newer type. The amount of wood you are loading, the time frame you are dealing with, and results that you get are basically identical to my system with a secondary burn stove.
Now I dont have all the answers and dont claim to, and only have personal experience with several models of stoves, so can only make judgements from those experiences. To answer your question, could I get the same results with 3 splits in a modern stove: NO.

Ron


----------



## Steve NW WI (Jan 19, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Are you boasting or really burning half, because that is a huge improvement.



Not half here, but 60% is a good honest number, based on a (colder than average) year of use.\

I'm working on a pic tutorial of just how difficult it is to run an EPA secondary burn stove. I let it out today, and just restarted it. I'll have pics of each adjustment, with times on em. I'll probably have to do the same with a "hot reload" over coals, as that's how I usually use it from Dec-Mar. It just happened to be warm today, so I let the fire slide. 66.5° in the basement when I came in tonight. 26° outside currently, and dropping.


----------



## Whitespider (Jan 20, 2014)

Del_ said:


> *I don't get the mentality that would make light of higher efficiency wood heating.*


Again... that depends on how you define "efficiency".
If you're all about "efficiency" why aren't you pulling your trailer with a Prius, Jetta or Focus?? Oh... I see, even though your truck uses twice the fuel, it's a better choice because it gets the job done faster... it may not be as "fuel efficient", but it is a more "efficient" trailer pulling machine. And I bet you'd *"*_*make light"*_ of it if someone suggested using a Prius to pull your trailer.
If you're all about "efficiency" why aren't you cutting firewood with a crosscut saw and splitting it with an axe?? Oh... I see, the gasoline powered equipment allows you to get more done per hour... even though the gasoline powered equipment does use fuel, it's a more "time efficient" way of doing things. And I bet you'd *"*_*make light"*_ of it if someone suggested going to all hand-powered tools.
If you're all about "efficiency" why aren't you cutting your grass with one of those little rechargeable electric push mowers?? Oh... I see, screw the damn "fuel efficiency", you ride on your 24 HP tractor to cut grass because it's easier, faster... and a damn site more convenient. And I bet you'd *"*_*make light"*_ of it if someone suggested you mow your 5½ acres with one of those.

First of all, "combustion efficient" ain't the same as "fuel efficient", "power efficient" or "time efficient"... and it does depend on how you define "efficiency". What you consider "efficient" ain't necessarily what the next guy will... and it's damn arrogant of you to think he should.



flotek said:


> *Some guys despite being shown every benefit and advantage will insist they are better off with a barrel stove then a new efficient unit .*


Once again... that depends on how you define "efficient".
Why is it so difficult to believe that a barrel stove may actually be the best choice for some applications, for some people??
Some guys, despite being shown every detriment and disadvantage, will insist you are better off using what they use, doing what they do, walking like they walk, believing what they believe... the arrogance is infuriating.

I don't care what you burn your wood in... and I've never once suggested that anyone should dump their new-fangled appliance, I have not suggested they should not purchasing one, and I have not besmirched anyone for their choice regardless of what it was.
The same can not be said for everyone here... can it??
*


----------



## zogger (Jan 20, 2014)

Del_ said:


> I can't get my epa wood stove to put out any heat! Must be this pine I'm burning.
> 
> Photo taken five minutes ago, evidently as Spider was typing.



Pretty stove! Does yours have those secondary things in it, so someplace there is blue or clear flame going on?


----------



## sunfish (Jan 20, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> Are you boasting or really burning half, because that is a huge improvement.


I never 'boast'... 

Yes, I truly am burning half the wood with the Jotul.

The Vermont Casting we had was a wood hog. It also had refractory that needed replacing every few years and other problems. Jotul is really much better!


----------



## sunfish (Jan 20, 2014)

To be fair to VC, it could have been the model we had and not their entire line. We had a Resolute Acclaim non cat from 1998-2008.


----------



## Ronaldo (Jan 20, 2014)

Steve NW WI said:


> Not half here, but 60% is a good honest number, based on a (colder than average) year of use.\
> 
> I'm working on a pic tutorial of just how difficult it is to run an EPA secondary burn stove. I let it out today, and just restarted it. I'll have pics of each adjustment, with times on em. I'll probably have to do the same with a "hot reload" over coals, as that's how I usually use it from Dec-Mar. It just happened to be warm today, so I let the fire slide. 66.5° in the basement when I came in tonight. 26° outside currently, and dropping.


Very good idea, Steve. I was thinking of doing something similar to that today while I was welding at work!


----------

