# A better explanation...



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

I posted this in another thread where it didn't really belong, so I'm starting this new thread with it...



CTYank said:


> *(Thank the EPA for promoting clean, efficient stoves.)*



Clean… yes.
Efficient… not so much.

Going from an old smoke dragon last year to an EPA certified (non-cat) firebox this year, I’ve noticed as temperatures drop so does the efficiency. During warmer periods this EPA box uses far less wood than the old box, but during colder periods it uses at least as much, if not more wood than the old box… and when it gets down-right arctic out it definitely uses more wood, a lot more! Overall, my total wood consumption hasn’t really changed… but we’re not as warm inside during extreme cold. And, the longer the cold weather lasts the worse the disparity gets.

Now some of y’all have argued that my problem is a bad install, or bad draft, or my modifications, or I’m using a firebox too small, or whatever. But none of that made any sense to me; the firebox is damn close to the same size as the old smoke dragon, and installed/modified in the same fashion… there just had to be more to it than that. I’ve experimented and tried dozens of things to improve performance, the best result has been to leave the intake air wide open and control the fire with a flue damper… better, but far from perfect. I’ve contended that the EPA design was simply a poor design, and in some ways I still think that… but the real problem is the EPA and how they require testing.

The EPA requires testing to be done under conditions they believe would result in the highest emissions rate (i.e. warmish weather) using a 15 foot stack height (measured from the floor the stove is sitting on). And the stove must perform, without the fire going out, while remaining within regulations, at minimum draft setting using dimensional lumber rather than cordwood. Well, that’s far from “real world” for many of us… my firebox is in the basement, resulting in an overall chimney height approaching 40 feet. What happens is, as the temperatures drop and the wind increases, the “heating efficiency” of my EPA box falls below that of the old smoke dragon… yet, because of design, the “combustion efficiency” remains. In other words, compared to the old smoke dragon much more of my heat is exiting the flue, which explains the excessive coaling and why the flue damper works best for me. Simply, the EPA regulations are all about combustion efficiency (emissions)… they have nothing to do with heating efficiency. In reality, in my home, during extreme cold, an old smoke dragon will use less wood and be a far more efficient “heater”… and yes, produce more emissions. During warmer weather the EPA box would be a better choice, but that ain’t when I need the heat the most.

Now, y’all can argue with me if ya’ want… but I’ve studied this at length. The other day I came across this article written in the 2006 WETT newsletter that not only confirmed what I was suspecting… but does a darn good job of explaining it. He calls it the “*Florida Bungalow Syndrome*"…

Florida Bungalow Syndrome

…and it also explains very well why some of us have problems similar to mine, while others of us don’t. Basically, the closer conditions are to test conditions the better these EPA stoves will work, but as conditions move away from test conditions the worse they will work… and the degradation in performance ain’t linear. If my fire box was sitting on the main floor of a single story, ranch-style home, in a slightly less cold and windy area of the country I’d likely be singing its praises… but living where I do, in the type home I do, I’ll never get close to the performance I need when January rolls around. It-is-what-it-is… it’s all about having the correct tool for the task at hand.


----------



## woodchuck357 (Feb 26, 2013)

*Seems normal epa to me*

design something to work best when it is needed least.


----------



## Uncle John (Feb 26, 2013)

Close enough for the U.S. Govt.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Thank you EPA.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Now, y’all can argue with me if ya’ want… but I’ve studied this at length. The other day I came across this article written in the 2006 *WETT* newsletter that not only confirmed what I was suspecting… but does a darn good job of explaining it. He calls it the “*Florida Bungalow Syndrome*"…



I just checked out _WETT_'s website. Whoa! (didn't see nothin' about Florida Bungalow.) Was I in the wrong place?


----------



## practicaldesign (Feb 26, 2013)

Same here the efficiency term the govts use that inturn the furnace makers use as a reference is vague at best. I compared a psg 4000 & 4500 to the max caddy , and the older 4000 series is more efficient on heat and wood consumption. Having an EPA certified sticker does not mean that it's efficient at saving wood and giving heat as well. In most cases te EPA sticker is a low air pollution worthyness incentive. It doesn't cover the other two requirements.

One furnace that impressed me is the blazeking Princess.


----------



## oppermancjo (Feb 26, 2013)

I will echo your comments. This fall I bought a Napoleon EPI22 Insert. Not a stand alone stove such as you have but I think we're in the same boat. I have also noticed the excessive coaling. If I managed to keep up on the ashes, essentially cleaning it out every morning before loading it up again, it wasn't too bad. That's a PITA though. I thought maybe putting in a grate to let air in underneath would help but with the small firebox size, there was room for about 2 splits and that was about it. I pulled the fire brick out of the bottom and tried with the grate. No appreciable difference. If anything, it was a bigger pain to clean the ashes out.

When I first tried the stove this past fall, I thought it was going to be awesome. I half-filled it an lit it off and I was super impressed the heat that it was putting out. Mind you it was 40+ degrees at that time outside. Now that winter is really here, I'm less than impressed. It keeps the house luke-warm at best. On a good day it's 68 degrees inside. Not terrible but I can't imagine the wife putting up with that for another winter.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Stroker Ace said:


> *I just checked out WETT's website. Whoa! (didn't see nothin' about Florida Bungalow.) Was I in the wrong place?*



I don't know if that article is on their website, it was in their 2006 newsletter (according to the link I supplied)... if you click the link I supplied you can read it.
I'm not a WETT member so I have no access to the "stuff" on their website.

Oh! That link is from...
*Gulland Associates Inc. - Hearth Products Training, Consulting and Publishing*
Here is a link to the "Home Page"...

http://www.gulland.ca/


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

*oppermancjo*,
One thing I did that increased the rate of heat transfer to the air around mine was to remove all the firebrick from the sides and back.
But... *BUT!* I must caution you, I have a forced air plenum built around mine that pulls heat away at a faster rate... which I believe keeps it from over-heating and warping the firebox.


----------



## practicaldesign (Feb 26, 2013)

oppermancjo said:


> I will echo your comments. This fall I bought a Napoleon EPI22 Insert. Not a stand alone stove such as you have but I think we're in the same boat. I have also noticed the excessive coaling. If I managed to keep up on the ashes, essentially cleaning it out every morning before loading it up again, it wasn't too bad. That's a PITA though. I thought maybe putting in a grate to let air in underneath would help but with the small firebox size, there was room for about 2 splits and that was about it. I pulled the fire brick out of the bottom and tried with the grate. No appreciable difference. If anything, it was a bigger pain to clean the ashes out.
> 
> When I first tried the stove this past fall, I thought it was going to be awesome. I half-filled it an lit it off and I was super impressed the heat that it was putting out. Mind you it was 40+ degrees at that time outside. Now that winter is really here, I'm less than impressed. It keeps the house luke-warm at best. On a good day it's 68 degrees inside. Not terrible but I can't imagine the wife putting up with that for another winter.



Hi. To my knowledge fireplace inserts give little to no heat. I have seen people mod their inserts with larger plenums which do work but you basically destroy the fireplace and convert what's left into a chimney.


----------



## Bushbow (Feb 26, 2013)

My findings are the opposite. I was burning a VC Defiant pre EPA last year and now I am burning an Englander NC30 through the same chimney. Both stoves have massive fuel capacity and both heat my house just fine but the 30 is more efficient, much more user friendly and keeps the house warmer on the COLD nights. No more coaling than the VC. I load on a bed of coals raked forward and in minutes cut the air all the way off and walk away with cruising temps of 6-700 for hours.

I am not burning or heating from the basement so that may be the issue but I know a ton of people with EPA stoves that are having great success with tall(30-40') chimneys and heat from their basement. Most run with a pipe/flu damper in conjunction with their stove intake control to slow the massive draft a tall chimney creates but can still cut the air off or near off at the stove. 

I will say the EPA stoves are more wood finicky so under 20%MC is near manditory for optimal performance making wood storage and issue but even old school technology runs better, much better, with 20% or less MC. They just are able to handle high MC giving the illusion that 2+yr seasoned wood is not necessary. 

What stove are you running? What stove were you running? What is the MC of your wood? How hot is your stove running? Are you getting secondary burn? I will speculate that a load of under 20% MC oak would burn great in your set up and give off a ton of heat with the air cut back on the stove control.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Bushbow said:


> *What stove are you running? What stove were you running? What is the MC of your wood? How hot is your stove running? Are you getting secondary burn? I will speculate that a load of under 20% MC oak would burn great in your set up and give off a ton of heat with the air cut back on the stove control.*



Well *Bushbow*, I've been through all those question _ad nauseam_ here on AS... but I'll do it one more time.

The stove I'm running now is a Pacific Energy Spectrum... rated at 72,000 BTU, 82.6% efficiency and recommended for spaces up to 2000 square feet.

The old smoke dragon (brand unknown) was a plain welded steel box with a hole in the back wall for the flue pipe (no firebrick ever) and air intake under a cast grate.

The MC of my firewood? I don't mess with gadgets like moisture meters... but the oak I've been burning was cut, split and stacked in single rows, in open sunshine and wind, well over two years ago. Much of it had been dead for some time before I cut it. It's been stacked in the basement close to the stove all winter. The MC ain't gonna' get any lower...

How hot is the stove running? Again, no gadgets (like stove thermometers) here, but I don't believe I can make it run hotter than wide-friggin'-open (that includes flue damper)... and yes, I get a firestorm of secondary burn.

And for your information... I wouldn't place a bet on your "speculation" if I were you, 'cause I'd take your money!


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Bushbow said:


> *...I know a ton of people with EPA stoves that are having great success with tall (30-40') chimneys and heat from their basement.*



Really? Just how many is a "ton"? And how many of them are heating their _entire_ house 100% with these "basement" EPA stoves?
(And yes, when I say 100% that is what I mean, *100%*... I haven't turned my gas furnace on in over two years.)


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 26, 2013)

My epa stove was the same, 30 ft chimney . I would have run away high temps, had all I could do to control them. Then massive amounts of coals in the morning. I had many phone conversations with the manufacturer. He told me to do almost everything the manual said not to do. Helped a little but still a huge pain. I now have a furnace, all the issue's are gone. I did notice the other night tho, that when the furnace is cruising on secondary burn, (air shut on primary, only overfire air) That is when the baro damper was working. I could hear and see the air being pulled from the basement , that would otherwise be pulling from the furnace causing it to burn out of it's control. Maybe epa stoves with long chimneys need a baro. Spidey, you could prove this easily. You should need one on your new furnace anyway, try it on your stove.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 26, 2013)

DEL, I agree you are losing heat up the chimney. ( that is what make up air vent is for, air only leaks in basement) But you are controlling the burn as to not over heat, (which also sends more heat up chimney) also allowing more draft to pull thru the stove at the end of the cycle burning up the coals. No one wants to get up a few hours early to walk down to the basement and open all the dampers. Then go back to bed. My old EPA stove, country woods by american energy. Service rep had me install a key damper on the flue, and the combustion air inlet. Even with both closed all the way, and the stove slide closed. If I loaded it up with wood, stove temp would get to 900* about 4 hrs. then when wood fibers where to go to coal, no heat at all, unless you reversed everything that was done. That is no way to heat. Ergo, no more stove. Hello furnace. SO MUCH BETTER>


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Del_ said:


> *Spider you are already using the second option, a key damper, and it is said to work very well to solve the Florida bungalow Syndrome.
> The article you linked to does not cover the problem that you are having with your install. If it did, then your key damper would have solved the problem.
> The article does not support your conclusion that your old smoke dragon is more efficent than your EPA Pacific Energy.*



Well I believe that article exactly describes my problems during cold weather... i.e. short burn times (or heating times). What I experience is a fast burning fire that leads to a lot of coals, and then the heat from those coals is sucked out the chimney before it can be transferred into my home. The article says that flue dampers work, it does not say they "_work very well to solve the Florida bungalow Syndrome_". It goes on to talk about the effectiveness relative to the actual chimney, and finishes with, "_Flue pipe key dampers are a throwback to earlier and less appealing forms of wood heating and in an ideal world they would be relegated to the history books._ And then later, "_None of the optional solutions is without drawbacks. The result is that whatever option the dealer or installer chooses, he or she could be open to criticism._"

None of those options are cures... they are simply band-aids. They do not treat the disease... they treat the symptoms. And besides, every one overrides the stove's intended operational design.
I've already said the flue damper has been the most effective for me... better, but not great.
And it don't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that (under my conditions, in my home) the old smoke dragon was a more efficient "heater" during extreme cold weather. During warm(er) weather the situation reverses (just as the article eludes to)... it-is-what-it-is *Del*.


----------



## Bushbow (Feb 26, 2013)

Well I stand corrected and apologize - not my intention to ruffle feathers. This just has not been my experience.


----------



## Toddppm (Feb 26, 2013)

practicaldesign said:


> Hi. To my knowledge fireplace inserts give little to no heat. I have seen people mod their inserts with larger plenums which do work but you basically destroy the fireplace and convert what's left into a chimney.



Odd?:confused2:


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

*Bushbow*,
No need to apologize… if my feathers got ruffled that’s all on me, not on you.
This has been an ongoing thing since right around the New Year, when the weather turned cold. All your questions (plus a lot more) have been asked, along with dozens of suggestions… most have been no help, and a few have yielded marginal, but at best temporary results. So I sort’a took that “deep breath” when you posted your questions. It’s all on me, I know you were trying to be helpful and I appreciate it… and I apologize for getting a bit “short” with you.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

*Del*,
C’mon man… I titled this thread “*A better explanation...*”
C’mon, really? Here I am admitting that my particular setup and conditions are likely contributing to the problem… but I’m also a realist and won’t ignore that stove design (due to EPA testing procedures) also contributes. You on the other hand are completely unable to see this objectively. You refuse to admit there may be a problem with the EPA design under certain conditions… even when there is plausible evidence staring you directly in the face. You are dead set on the fact that it’s all on me… the EPA just can’t be wrong, or make any mistakes… C’mon! Seriously man… I ain’t the one being bull-headed here.

*Del*, if, as you say, I am, “_loosing large amounts of heat up the open passages into the single flue to which your woodstove is also connected_”… it’s the same amount heat that was being lost when the old smoke dragon was installed to the very same flue in the very same way. That ain’t any sort of argument. If I’m loosing heat now, I was loosing heat then, and the old smoke dragon made more than enough heat to offset that… something the new stove is unable to accomplish. All you’ve done is strengthen my position.

I guess, rather than ignore the facts I’ll just ignore you… that is, until you’ve walked a mile or two in my shoes. Let me know when you're willing to look at this in an objective way... until then, you are no help at all.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

And by the way guys... the situation does reverse as the outside air warms up.

Our low temp this morning started out at 27[sup]o[/sup] (which is one heck of a lot warmer than it's been for two months) and reached a high of 39[sup]o[/sup] (we haven't been above freezing since December... well, maybe once) with very light wind. I loaded the firebox with elm and ash (not oak) this morning at 5:00 AM (house was 69[sup]o[/sup]) and not a single stick has been added since... and now, 14 hours later at 7:00 PM IT'S 76[sup]o[/sup] IN THIS HOUSE, with just a few coals at the back of the box. The wife tells me it was 79[sup]o[/sup] in here around 3:00 PM and she finally opened the doors for a little while.

This EPA box is a more efficient heater than the old dragon when the weather is warmer... but a far less efficient heater when the temps drop down around zero (in this house). It-just-flat-is-what-it-is.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Bushbow said:


> Well I stand corrected and apologize - not my intention to ruffle feathers. This just has not been my experience.



You didn't do nothihg wrong. Whitespider, why ya getting hostile? Are you getting drunk? Bushbow has some good points. Anybody that can contribute should. I would also like to see some mc readings as well as some thermal reading on that 82.6 % efficient systyem. (Bull), wood won't do it without lab condition gassification that's all. Every time this is the same, that's why another thread. Now I'm keybard warrior, and Del_ is gonna school ya. Just like old times.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

You shoulda called this thread, "A better explanation...".


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Hey *Ace*... I admitted my fault and apologized for my "hostility."


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Hey *Ace*... I admitted my fault and apologized for my "hostility."



I know. Hahaha. Just screwin' around. I'm done.


----------



## Oxford (Feb 26, 2013)

Whitespider,

I like figuring out how to repurpose something as much as the next guy, and figuring out a problem even better than that, but have you considered that your appliance is just too small? From previous description, you live in an old, uninsulated home with poor windows in a windy cold climate, which I do as well. From manufacturer data which you have quoted in this thread, that appliance is 82.6% efficient at a rated 72kBTU input, meaning roughly 59kBTU input to the space through distribution ductwork that, while you put some thought into it, it wasn't designed to use.

Figuring 40 BTU/sf as a guideline- and that's probably not enough given the above description of your home- you need about 80kBTU for your home if it is 2000 sf, so you need an appliance about a third bigger, I reckon. Probably more like half again, really, maybe more than that on a windy cold day.

Just a thought,

Oxford


----------



## noodle (Feb 26, 2013)

Spider, I dont have a better explanation and I have not read every reply to this or other posts on the subject so if others have said this already I appologize. Maybe all EPA non cat stoves arent the same. Just like all smoke dragons arent the same. Is it possible that with a different epa stove you may of had a different experience. Just saying. At the end of the day you paid alot of money for something that your not happy with and that would piss me off too.


----------



## Oxford (Feb 26, 2013)

Noodle,

*At the end of the day you paid alot of money for something that your not happy with and that would piss me off too.*

No, he didn't. He got it for free and has been trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole ever since.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

It make sense to me that it burns right or most efficiently in the marginal season, as the opposite is the biggest complaint with solid fuel appliance users.

You can't hardly turn 'em down enough in the spring and fall. Cut more wood and open windows- that's usually par for the course in the marginal heating season. That's when the creosote gets formed from burning even the dryest fuel. It is the kind of pretense the EPA is designing these under when you and I know the true goal is chaos and retardation. A better way? Just turn the damn thing off and put on a hemp sweater. And save the whales and them stupid polar bears.


----------



## Oxford (Feb 26, 2013)

That heater isn't less efficient at lower outdoor temperatures, it's just plain not big enough to keep up with the home's heat losss.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> *...that appliance is 82.6% efficient at a rated 72kBTU input, meaning roughly 59kBTU input to the space through distribution ductwork... ...you need about 80kBTU for your home if it is 2000 sf, so you need an appliance about a third bigger...*



No, that's not correct. The stove is rated at 72,000 BTU *output*... efficiency rating has nothing to do with that. Efficiency rating is how well it extracts heat from the wood... not a percentage of the rated output. The area I'm heating through the forced air system is three small bedrooms, a kitchen and bathroom and an open living/dining room... something under 1200 square feet. For reference, the gas furnace is rated at 60,000 BTU and does not (or did not) struggle to heat the place... even in extreme cold.


----------



## noodle (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> Noodle,
> 
> *At the end of the day you paid alot of money for something that your not happy with and that would piss me off too.*
> 
> No, he didn't. He got it for free and has been trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole ever since.



I wish mine was free. $3000. It does work well though.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> That heater isn't less efficient at lower outdoor temperatures, it's just plain not big enough to keep up with the home's heat losss.



*DING* 

There is no way you can expect to heat an Iowa home the way I've heard this one described with less than 90,000. I'm not for squeaking by. Throw a brick at it, not a little marble. I built enough homes, too that I can advise ya to look around your rim joist area with a basement for heat loss. All that area above ground is heat loss like a ribbon of conductor draining the house. Mine is so bad, it melts snow. You guys won't hear me complain unless the house is less than 76 degrees. 200,000 BTU boiler and 4000 sq ft. If you are gonna heat with wood, don't get stingy with the wood. Walk around turning off light bulbs or something else.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 26, 2013)

Spidey, The draft being to much in cold weather with the temp difference. Sucking more air over the fire rather than thru the air wash. Makes perfect sense. I would love to see you try a bdr on the next cold snap. If it works, this info could be very helpful to a lot of other people having the same problem.
Most get set at around 4


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> *That heater isn't less efficient at lower outdoor temperatures, it's just plain not big enough to keep up with the home's heat loss.*





Stroker Ace said:


> *There is no way you can expect to heat an Iowa home the way I've heard this one described with less than 90,000.*



So what is your explanation for the fact that a non-EPA stove of the _same size_ (actually a touch smaller), and converted into the _same forced air configuration_, was able to make us sweat in the _same extreme cold_, using *LESS WOOD!*

Like I said in the original post to this thread... those explanations don't cut it, there has to be something more.
I'm trying to think and reason in multiple dimensions... you, on the other hand are not.
And this single-dimensional thinking continues even when others post they have experienced the _exact same problems_ with other makes and models of EPA stoves... still others using them under different condition have not had those problems.

Some of you ain't seeing the complete picture.


----------



## haveawoody (Feb 26, 2013)

My stove is the exact opposite.
When it's mildish it's quite difficult to keep a hardwood fire going, heating and wood burning seems semi poor even with air at 100%.
Mild in my stove = silver maple or sad hardwood fires.

Now in the cold or real cold my stove tends to burn real well, so well that the house tends to get quite hot even with the air being turned down quite low.

Wood use for me with my epa i would guess at 1/2 my old stove over the last 3 seasons.

This year although it seemed like a mildish winter it seemed to be a big year for wood usage.
I'm about 1 face beyond a normal season already so a difficult one to judge a new stove.
2 full cord is pretty typical for me and this winter i would guess 2.5 cord will be used so 25%-30% more than normal.
Not sure if this helps in making a would usage guess on yours vs what the old the used.
My old stove was always about 4 cords usage, more on an odd winter.


----------



## Oxford (Feb 26, 2013)

From the manufacturer:

*
Heating Capacity will vary depending on type of wood, floor plan, house layout, heat loss of home, and geographical location.
*

You are fighting at least two of those, as far as I can tell.

You are correct that I misread the ratings. I deal with large gas burners regularly and that calculation is ingrained in my mind.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

haveawoody said:


> My stove is the exact opposite.
> .



What's your _elevation_?


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> *From the manufacturer:
> Heating Capacity will vary depending on type of wood, floor plan, house layout, heat loss of home, and geographical location.
> 
> You are fighting at least two of those, as far as I can tell.*



Now you're finally starting to get it... that's what this thread (especially the link I provided in the original post) is all about. My "_floor plan, house layout, heat loss of home, and geographical location_" as well as chimney configuration and probably some other things are causing the EPA design to be far less efficient... because the testing procedure mandated by the EPA does not reflect the "real world" where I live and heat. The EPA required test conditions are specific... which cause a major flaw in the design under certain "real world" conditions. Although nothing can be "flaw proof"... without the EPA (poorly thought-out) regulations manufactures could, and would , alter or offer designs and/or adjustments for different applications. As it is, they can not, because they must meet EPA specifications burning dimensional lumber, with a 15 foot stack, in warm weather.

It is not possible to set one single specification and expect it to work in all situations... wood stoves or foot ware or whatever. Yet this is exactly what the government has done time and time again... it really is idiotic.


----------



## Oxford (Feb 26, 2013)

No, what I see is a guy trying to hammer the aforementioned square peg into a round hole, bullying people with almost-engineering and quasi-physics if they dare suggest any reason that his home brew heater won't work the way he thinks it should, no matter how much much smarter than the rest of the world he thinks he is.

For example, some reasonable people have suggested that the way that your chimney drafts, and the way that draft is affected by the other appliances you have venting in the same chimney, may be affecting the burn times and "coaling" you are observing. Your response has been to either ignore these suggestions or discount them out of hand.

Others have suggested that since you have completely repurposed this appliance that it is perhaps unreasonable for you to expect it to work exactly as you wish, since its original design was not intended for this application and your subsequent modifications have been strictly by the seat of your pants. I'm not discounting that method, by the way, as most of us in the problem solving business operate that way at least some of the time, but you have to be willing to accept that sometimes you're wrong, that your intuition is incorrect. Your response has been to belittle those suggestions as "linear thinking," whatever that is. Perhaps, but I have noticed that none of the linear thinkers are regularly complaining that their wood heated homes are uncomfortable.

Finally, I suggested that your new stove may be too small, which you responded to saying that your old stove heated better with less wood. Maybe so, in a different year with different wood. Even if your contention is empirically true, it begs the question of why you changed it out and further the question of why you have not returned it to service. Leaving those questions aside, heat loss is heat loss and living in an old house myself I believe the numbers don't lie.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see how your experience with yet another stove turns out. I expect that it will give you ample opportunity to explain to those of us as yet unenlightened just how much smarter you are than the EPA and all those pointy-headed engineers with their soft hands and desk jobs.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> Perhaps, but I have noticed that none of the linear thinkers are regularly complaining that their wood heated homes are uncomfortable.


Good stuff.



Oxford said:


> Regardless, it will be interesting to see how your experience with yet another stove turns out.


 He got that Daka airtight job, we are waiting, I bet it works better.




Oxford said:


> I expect that it will give you ample opportunity to explain to those of us as yet unenlightened just how much smarter you are than the EPA and all those _*pointy-headed engineers*_ with their soft hands and desk jobs.



Was that why they wear them pointy hats? Oh that was the Klan.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 26, 2013)

Oxford said:


> *...you have to be willing to accept that sometimes you're wrong, that your intuition is incorrect.*


I have no problem admitting that... my "_intuition_" that an EPA certified firebox would be better was in fact, way, way off base.



> *...your old stove heated better with less wood. ... Even if your contention is empirically true, it begs the question of why you changed it out...*


Simple... the firebox cracked and the back wall warped after near 30 years of use. (not just a single year with different wood)



> *...it will give you ample opportunity to explain to those of us as yet unenlightened just how much smarter you are than the EPA and all those pointy-headed engineers with their soft hands and desk jobs.*


One thing is more than certain... it ain't difficult to be "smarter" than a bunch of government pencil-pushers... and that there is just common sense!


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 26, 2013)

They are bean counters. Any body on the dole cuttin' and splitting some Oak? Beech? Didn't think so.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Ok... now that I've had my nightly rest (and slept off the belly full of beer) let's get back to some rational discussion.

First of all the criticized flue set-up, with multiple appliances entering the brick chimney (which is the way it was done for well over a hundred years and works fine if done correctly). That was actually one of the easiest things to eliminate as the "cause". The two other appliances are the LP furnace and water heater... because the furnace isn't used (it's turned off and kept for back-up) I simply disconnected the 4-inch exhaust pipe and capped it. The 3-inch exhaust from the water heater took a little more thought... on two separate weekends I waited until morning baths were done and the heater had recovered, then shut down the pilot light and capped its chimney entrance. The tank held enough hot water for washing hands and a few dishes… and gave me about 30-36 hours of test session (mid-morning Saturday to mid-afternoon Sunday, on two separate weekends) before I had to fire it back up. During both test there was no noticeable difference, better or worse… it changed nothing at all.

*stihly dan*,
The multiple appliances entering the chimney makes it difficult to use a barometric damper… it can still be done as long as the appliance uses a relatively stable draft (such as an oil furnace) but won’t work properly on a wood fired appliance with varying draft during the firing cycle. The way my chimney is set up, my only option for draft control is a flue damper… and I wouldn’t have a wood-fired appliance without one (better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it).

Is the firebox too small for the application?? Maybe… maybe not… but that doesn’t explain why it won’t heat after the secondary burn shuts down and the fire collapses into a bed of coals, especially during frigid weather. The heat sensor that starts the blower is mounted in a vented metal box, which is mounted on the flue pipe about a foot above the firebox. There is plenty of heat in the flue, which keeps the blower running… if I touched the flue it would raise blisters, yet I can lay my hand on the bare metal parts on the front of the stove. Now it’s been suggested that the blower is cooling the firebox too much, and that was also simple to test… I just shut the blower off with a bed of coals in the firebox. Although the metal did get somewhat warmer, I could still lay my hand on it (and as a side note, yesterday during the warmer weather and light winds the metal was uncomfortably hot 14 hours after loading, with just a few coals in the box). I was actually impressed with the thing during the early part of the heating season, before it got really cold… it burned well and heated well. The metal plenum around it would be so hot you didn’t want to stand close for very long. But once the mercury dipped into single digits… well, you can sit on the plenum (after the secondary shuts down, which during extreme cold may only take an hour or less) and never break sweat. Being too small does not explain why the firebox is cold and the flue is hot… but what does explain it is that all the heat is exiting out the flue.

It’s also been mentioned that there might be something wrong with my box… like it’s broken, or was built incorrectly. Well… I got this from my brother’s father-in-law, who used it for a few years in his home before his wife put her foot down (she didn’t like the mess). He had it sitting on a raised hearth in the middle of his Family Room… which has a large opening at one end to the living room/dining room area, and another large opening at the other end into the kitchen. The kitchen and living room/dining room are separated by a half-counter (basically it’s just one big room). This stove would heat them right out of the house if he wasn’t careful how he loaded it, and it would heat all night long. When he gave it to me he told me just how wonderful it was, how well it worked, and how little wood it used. I’ve talked with him a length about my issues… he’s simply dumbfounded. But!! (and this is where I started researching the chimney height thing) His Family room has a flat roof, and with the stove sitting on a raised hearth he only had a total of *8-10 feet of chimney pipe on his installation*… straight up and through the roof! The only real difference (that would affect how the thing burns, and hasn’t been eliminated as the cause) between the two installations is about 30 feet of chimney!

Now if you go back and read some of the threads and posts from December/January you’ll find a couple places where I express a belief that I was loosing too much heat out the chimney… which caused me to start using the flue damper. You will also find where I suspected that the secondary air was cooling the firebox and stealing heat after the secondary burn shut down. You will also find where I thought one of my modifications would be to disconnect the secondary air control from the primary air control so it could be adjusted independently (I ended up modifying the linkage so it doesn’t open as much, which helped a little… but it wasn’t a “fix”).

All the things I did, those mentioned here plus several others mentioned in other threads, improved performance… until the temperatures got a little colder. By the time temperatures fell below zero I was out of ideas. All the reasons some of y’all believe is the problem can only explain it partially, not completely… they don’t make sense when all the evidence and observations are applied (you’re not here on site, so don’t start again). There was just something strange going on and I couldn’t put my finger on it… until I came across that article, and it was like a light came on in my head. So far, the “*Florida Bungalow Syndrome*” is the only thing that explains *all* the symptoms, and explains why near *all* the things I’ve tried have made improvements… but only on a temporary basis, until temperatures dropped another notch.

See… I’ve heard everything that y’all have said. I’ve tested and eliminated those ideas as well as I could. I’ve considered that it could be a combination of problems… etc., etc., etc. But as I’ve worked with them and experimented, they just don’t make sense when all the evidence and observations are considered (this ain’t my first ride on the pony). Some of those observations are subtle… hard to explain… you’d have to have been there type things. Really, the only piece that fits in the last hole of this puzzle is the “*Florida Bungalow Syndrome*”.

If any of y’all can come up with something that fits as well or better I’m willing to listen… but it needs to fit as well or better.


----------



## gregfox (Feb 27, 2013)

Just an idea... have you tried smaller splits oriented with more air space? This is what I have to do when it's arctic out. Bigger splits don't put out enough heat fast enough and without the airspace between them the coals tend to pile up on me.


----------



## Arbonaut (Feb 27, 2013)

_*Florida Bungalow Syndrome*_... Hahahahaha. Good times. Good Times.


----------



## Jredsjeep (Feb 27, 2013)

Quote from Spidy
"…and it also explains very well why some of us have problems similar to mine, while others of us don’t. Basically, the closer conditions are to test conditions the better these EPA stoves will work, but as conditions move away from test conditions the worse they will work… and the degradation in performance ain’t linear. If my fire box was sitting on the main floor of a single story, ranch-style home, in a slightly less cold and windy area of the country I’d likely be singing its praises… but living where I do, in the type home I do, I’ll never get close to the performance I need when January rolls around. It-is-what-it-is… it’s all about having the correct tool for the task at hand."

that very interesting to me since i started reading that and i was half wondering if you would be calling me out on that since i fit that exact scenario. Ranch house, single story, less cold and windy with a 13-15 ft chimney.

i have heated my house 100% with wood for years now and my NC30 stove has been great.

at least with my setup though that i have had for about 8 years now i have noticed one thing completely opposite that you have mentioned. when the weather warms up on the shoulder season my EPA stove heats less. my stove will noticeably slow down the wood consumption with the same draft settings if it is single digits to teens vs a warmer 40's deg day.

i attributed this to draft and the greater temp difference pulled a stronger draft up my chimney running my stove hotter in the colder weather. 

most assemblies are made to run in a certain "sweet zone" i can believe that the EPA has steered wood stove manufacturers to heat under certain laboratory conditions. Sounds like you are truly outside the parameters of what they spec'd the stove to run with. although i find it hard to believe that they would test a stove to run on a 80 deg day the theory seems to fit. this coming from a pointy hat engineer who works in R&D (nothing related to stoves though). Just my 2 cents worth

most assemblies are made to run in a certain "sweet zone" i can believe that the EPA has steered wood stove manufacturers to heat under certain laboratory conditions. sounds like you are truly outside the perameters of what they spec'd the stove to run with. although i find it hard to believe that they would test a stove to run on a 80 deg day the theory seems to fit. this coming from a pointy hat engineer who works in R&D (nothing related to stoves though).


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 27, 2013)

You're still beating this dead horse, eh? You're stove has too low an output capacity, especially as you have it set up. The manufacturer says it can only maintain a secondary combustion for 1/3 of the burn, and clearly its max output is specified during that time. After the secondary combustion ends its output will be lower by at least 1/3. 

Further, you've said you are hauling buckets of unburned coals out of it, so you are throwing away a significant portion of the BTUs. If indeed you are "using" the same amount of firewood then this stove us using less, as you are throwing some of it away. 

You say it becomes less efficient and burns more wood when the temperature drops - no kidding, you have the thing wide open and modified (opened) the firebox and removed the firebrick, but still usually only have coals. That is because your bizarre flue has poor draft, and when you finally get a decent draft going in cold weather it burns everything up and sends the heat up the flue because it's basically just a big open steel box now. 

My "EPA" secondary combustion stove is in the basement with a well insulated single tube stainless steel 6" tube rising 30'. There are no dampers or draft controls in the flue. When it gets colder out the thing pulls like crazy, allowing me to stop down the air control farther and get some fantastic burns - great roiling blue plasma over the wood and heat outputs that are almost scary. After the the more volatile stuff cooks off I have to open the air control some to keep it going, and if I don't add anything then eventually I'll have to open it wider and there will be little secondary burn. This is fine because the stove is surrounded by lot of stone, and usually the room is way too hot and I can let that stone re-radiate the heat it has stored.

The stove is a US Stoves magnolia made of welded sheet steel, and has a single inlet control that limits BOTH primary and secondary air. It's sealed and I can pretty much shut off the air inlet, otherwise I could not keep it from running away. When I get it overfired and shut off the inlet I can see every place where the gaskets or window seal are leaking even a few molecules oxygen into the firebox - there is a small flame tendril showing me exactly where it is.

You can whine all you want but stoves of this type can work very well, with lots of heat output and efficiency, and they work _best _with strong draft. That does not mean they are all equally good, and if you have a strong flue you better make sure the stove limits BOTH primary and secondary air or there will be no way to control it.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Feb 27, 2013)

Spidey, I'm gonna have to agree with bits and pieces from the others. Mainly: Your stoveace is too dang small, leading you to feeding it too often in cold weather, which causes lots of coal buildup.

What I've learned with my new stove is that it's a balancing act of settings and fuel load to get it to do what you want. You can't fill it full and expect to burn it down to nothing in 3 hours (like I could in the old stove) and transfer ####-tons of heat into the building. I used to do this, get the basement hot to the point of unbearable, then fill, damp back and leave for 10-12 hours to come home to comfortable. With the new stove, I have to use a little propane (about a gallon or two a day - estimating use based on tank guage - about 40 gallons used including hot water and 4 days on full propain while I was up north fishing since my install in late Jan.) to maintain "comfortable" at the end of a long period away from home. The old stove wasn't better at keeping me warm, it was better at pure WOT heat output, much of which would be stored in the thermal mass of the house to make up for the heat it wasn't putting out toward the end of a long burn. The new one just pumps out a lower quantity of even heat over that period, something you've alluded to before.

After my experience with a 3.4 CF stove, it's rating of 2,400 sq ft is probably only realistic until you get down around 0, or have a well insulated home. (I'd call mine just slightly below average, but more insulated than what you have). A 2.1 CF stove like your Spectrum could only be rated to heat 2,000 sq ft somewhere where they have signs that say "bridge may freeze in winter". Up here, I'd consider a stove that size to be good for 1,200 or so? Glad I bought the big one, and didn't get that one from you in hindsight.

Hope the Daka works well for ya, and we can be done listening to the high pitched whine coming from the Iowa river bottoms.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Well, for somebody that’s never seen it, you sure do know a lot about my chimney and its ability to draft *WoodHeatWarrior*… you must be clairvoyant, huh? Or maybe you traveled with Santa Clause last Christmas and dropped down all those chimneys.

The problem has never been poor draft… ever! And for you, or anyone else, to preach to me that I have a poor draft problem, when you’ve never seen the damn chimney is flat arrogant, audacious, and bigheaded of you. If there’s a draft problem it’s because there’s too much draft, not because there’s too little… and that’s a damn fact whether you want to accept it or not. You could pull the pipe from the chimney collar and have your hat sucked off your head… and you’d eventually find it a couple hundred yards out in the woodlot. If I have such a poor draft problem why is it, on a cold day, I can open the firebox door _with the flue damper completely closed_… and not get even a whiff of smoke in the house? Why is it, when it’s 50[sup]o[/sup] outside I can close the flue damper something more than half way and still not get any smoke in the house when I open the door? Why is it I can take a piece of tissue paper, place it on the floor of an ice-cold fire box, and when I let go of it I can watch it fly up and out… and actually have someone stand outside and watch it exit the chimney? Try that experiment with your stove… I’d love to hear about the results. I’ve opened the cleanout door on the floor in mid-summer and watched it suck a piece of notebook paper off the floor (placed there to catch any soot that might fall) and send it out the top of the chimney (weren’t no need to worry about soot, it sucked it all right in). It ain’t poor draft… get over it already.

And I ain’t “_modified (opened) the firebox_” in any way… where do you get that idea? I run the draft setting wide open because it’s not needed using the flue damper. The flue damper chokes back the fire way more than the stove draft adjustment ever did (not to mention it works one heck of a lot better). Most days, with the damper set a bit over half way the draft adjustment makes absolutely no noticeable difference in combustion at any setting… because even at its lowest setting it would allow more air in than the flue damper will.

So… “_the manufacturer says it can only maintain a secondary combustion for 1/3 of the burn_”. How long should that be? How does around 45 minutes sound to you on an extremely cold day? Let’s see… 45 times 3… hmmm…. so I can expect around 2 hours and 15 minutes total burn cycle… correct? Well guess what? That is about what I get before the thing *quits* heating. I didn’t say before the heat output reduces, I said it *quits* heating… I can lay my hand on the bare metal stove front, but the flue is screaming hot.

You seem pretty sure of yourself for someone who doesn’t have even a fraction of the facts… and the facts you think you have are incorrect. I’m glad your stove makes you sweat… good for you… but yours ain’t mine, your setup ain’t mine, and what you think you know has nothing to do with mine. My stove does not have, as you say, “_too low an output_”… it has *NO OUTPUT! NONE!* After the secondary shuts down any heat it’s making just goes out the damn flue… even with the damper closed. That ain’t a friggin’ “_poor draft_” problem!


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> *What I've learned with my new stove is that it's a balancing act of settings and fuel load to get it to do what you want. You can't fill it full and expect to burn it down to nothing in 3 hours (like I could in the old stove) and transfer ####-tons of heat into the building. I used to do this, get the basement hot to the point of unbearable, then fill, damp back and leave for 10-12 hours to come home to comfortable.*



*Steve*, I didn't do that with the old stove (heat to the point of unbearable, then refill), there's near always someone at home to maintain the thing... we just kept the house at an even 70-72[sup]o[/sup]. I couldn't make the old one burn down in 3 hours without melting it down at the same time, but this new one will burn down to a bed of coals in three hours... a bed of coals that do not heat! Don't you guys get it? I can lay my hand on the bare steel of the stove when it stops heating... even with several inches of coals in the box. Y'all need to quit looking for simple, traditional answers to this... it ain't simple, and it ain't traditional. In fact, most of the time it don't even make sense.

Listen, I agree I'm not using it as it was intended to be used...
But even so... how I'm using it does not explain what's happening... it just flat don't.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Feb 27, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> In fact, most of the time it don't even make sense.



You got that right! You're not gonna touch my stove with a bed of coals in it - 300-500° stove top temps even at the end of the cycle. I'll take a pic when I get home tonight. Just filled up 10 minutes ago.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> You got that right! You're not gonna touch my stove with a bed of coals in it - 300-500° stove top temps even at the end of the cycle. I'll take a pic when I get home tonight. Just filled up 10 minutes ago.



I believe you...
Heck, after what I've been through, right now I'd be tickled pink if mine ran anything over 150[sup]o[/sup] when it got cold outside.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 27, 2013)

OK, I went back and read your old post, and the holes you drilled were not from the outside, so _*I was wrong*_ about that part. However, you've said you keep the air control wide open and it still burns down to coals and is not hot. No way it would do that with a good draft and the air control open - all the air manifolds and stuff are pretty much irrelevant with the primary air control open, it's really just a steel box with a big inlet and outlet hole in it at that point. If you think the draft is good then you have to explain why the coals don't burn up. 

If I tried that with mine, even ignoring the massive overfire there would be nothing left but some ash in short order. Lots of air flow through a steel box with burning wood in it tends to do that - what exactly do you think is happening in the mystery stove?

As for the chimney damper, by using that you are forcing the secondary combustion off. Without a damper, restricting the primary air inlet forces the air to flow through the secondary manifold (which is more restrictive). If you limit the flow with a damper on the output then from the stove's point of view there is less draft, which can easily flow through the open primary path and there will be no reason for it to flow through the (more restrictive) secondary path. The reason these things like a strong draft is because it's quite restrictive trying to get air to go through the secondary air manifold and flow out the little holes with any kind of velocity. With the primary open and draft limited on the output you are bypassing the secondary.

Anyway, the problems you are having are not at all universal. There are many of us who do not have these issues at all with "EPA" secondary combustion stoves. Lots of heat and less wood use. I don't really need to diagnose your system, it's too messed up to bother with. I'm more interested in countering your constant complaints about these types of stoves so other people reading this don't get the idea that your system is typical and that these stoves don't work. They do, or at least many of them do.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

Sorry, but around here according to a dealer. spideys problem with a stove in the basement is very frequent. Some places recommend NOT putting one in the basement for that reason. Only on the epa stoves.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 27, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> Sorry, but around here according to a dealer. spideys problem with a stove in the basement is very frequent. Some places recommend NOT putting one in the basement for that reason. Only on the epa stoves.


We've discussed quite a few different problems here and I'm not sure which one in particular you are referring to. The problem of too much draft causing an over fire that cannot be properly controlled when there is only a primary air control?


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 27, 2013)

Good thread lots of good posts... I dont want to regurgitate what most of you have written so far but here's a few observations:

* As many mentioned wood is a non standard fuel burning in a non-standardized environment variables (draft, chimney lenght, house insulation, barometric pressure etc...) this is opposed to modern furnaces (oil, gas) they have controls and powered motors and electronics to deal with. User experience will vary from fire to fire since the variables are constantly changing. 

* Also user experience will vary from user to user. Two user might have the same model one will love it and one will hate it.

* BTU output stated for any wood stove is on high fire. This is only maintained for 1 hour at best. Wood burning cycle is a bell curve. ie. it starts low, peaks then lower down again.

* It's a 'zone heater' ie it has no means of transporting heat from here to there. (unlike a forced air furnace). You have to help it along.

* Square FT rating is all baloney. We use it because the customers demand it but there is no science to it. Rely on the cu ft of the firebox. The bigger the firebox the more heat. How it covers Sq ft is entirely up to you. 

* EPA testing has no efficiencies attached to it. It's all about emissions (pollution). This testing is done with cribbed dimensional lumber in small QTY.

* However, most mfg test their unit with mix hardwood to approximate real life burning and from that they get their BTU & efficiencies rating. 

* Efficiencies testing for wood stove uses the 'stack loss' method. This works quite well... Whatever heat is lost up the flue is deducted from the over BTU output. Therefore, if stack loss is 20% of the BTU output then the unit is 80% efficient.

* I've met John Gulland. Very knowledgeable guy and he wrote part of our manuals on how to burn wood. 

Spidey, 40 ft chimney is very tall. I have a 30 ft chimney and I've gone crazy with my insert insulation. Therefore I have a fantastic draft, actually overdraft. It burns hot and fast, & I did modify some of the air intake as well to slow things down. 

We're working on some electronic monitoring system as an option to make stove more automated to balance the output of wood stoves.

Guys, no need to get our underwear in knots over this. It's wood burning... One of its charm is it never twice the same. If you want good regulated heat output there are many oil furnaces available for cheap on Craiglist.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> We've discussed quite a few different problems here and I'm not sure which one in particular you are referring to. The problem of too much draft causing an over fire that cannot be properly controlled when there is only a primary air control?



On units that have the over fire secondary. most stoves as you close the primary, you reduce the secondary. But the secondary stays open at a min setting. So when there is a draft to great, it pulls to much air thru the secondary. Causing a hot quick fire then leaving a large coal bed that won't burn down because the air is only coming thru the secondary. In effect whisking the heat from the top of the stove out the chimney. The place that doe's not recommend these stoves in the basement, suggests a cat stove for these applications.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *If you think the draft is good then you have to explain why the coals don't burn up.*


Oh c’mon man, we’ve been through this. It’s because the primary air comes in at the top and is sucked up the flue before it ever makes it down to the coals. I even tightly wadded up some newspaper and put it in the ash pan (the primary and secondary air enter from the same chamber as the ash pan) and lit it, closed the ash drawer and watched the smoke come into the firebox… it was sucked up the flue before it ever made it to the coals. You should see the glass in my door, the lower half has turned to an etched milky color… starting right where the air reverses direction.



> *…what exactly do you think is happening in the mystery stove?*


It ain’t a mystery any more… it’s a serious overdraft condition (for this particular stove, anyway). If you sit and watch it burn it all makes sense. I get secondary burn flames shooting like a jet well down into the firebox (with the flue damper closed or open, or the draft control closed or open, or both closed or open) and it causes the fire to ignite on top and burn into coals rapidly. The coals collapse onto the wood and coals below (that ain’t getting any primary air to speak of) basically smothering them further. The problem is the suck is sucking harder than the intake can keep up with… most of the primary air just gets sucked out as soon as it enters.



> *As for the chimney damper… forcing the secondary combustion off… restricting the primary air inlet… secondary manifold (which is more restrictive)… limit the flow with a damper… less draft…no reason for it to flow… The reason these things like a strong draft...*


Not according to the article I found, written by someone who should know (it appears). In fact, if you read it (the link is in the original post) EPA stoves are specifically designed to operate at the lowest possible draft so they can pass emissions testing at the low setting… because the low setting is where particulates would most likely be created and expelled… where it would mostly likely fail testing. But because they are not “air tight” (they can’t be or they’d fail testing miserably) they can be susceptible to overdraft problems under certain conditions. Don’t talk at me like I’m a child that needs a picture drawn to understand… and a picture drawn by someone who ain’t even seen the landscape to begin with…



> *Anyway, the problems you are having are not at all universal… I don't really need to diagnose your system… I'm more interested in countering your constant complaints about these types of stoves so other people reading this don't get the idea that your system is typical...*


Did you even bother to read the original post? The link I provided? Cripes man, the whole point of this thread was to state my problems (very excessive problems) are not typical under typical conditions and typical installations. Although those problems manifest themselves because of the way stoves are required to operate during EPA testing. Because the EPA has placed a “one-size-fits-all” standard to certification… getting one to operate properly (even left totally stock) in the location I have mine installed will likely be impossible… difficult at best… it-is-what-it-is. That article in the link I provided is talking about and EPA certified stoves that are adversely affected by an overdraft condition in tall(er) chimneys during extreme cold weather… with the most common complaint from the owner/operator being extremely short burn times. Well I’m not your run-of-the-mill “common” owner/operator (most of us here are not), I can put two-and-two together and see what other symptoms that issue could create… symptoms the “common” guy wouldn’t think about or even notice. Cripes, the author of the article recommends that EPA certification be changed allowing manufactures to put adjustments on the stoves so a field installer can make adjustment for specific installations to eliminate such issues… adjustments hidden from the owner/operator.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *We've discussed quite a few different problems here and I'm not sure which one in particular you are referring to. The problem of too much draft causing an over fire that cannot be properly controlled when there is only a primary air control?*



My air control moves both the primary and secondary at the same time... and it will not completely close either one.
I've played with the linkage so the secondary doesn't open as far, and that helped some... for awhile, until it got really, really cold out.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> *Sorry, but around here according to a dealer. spideys problem with a stove in the basement is very frequent.
> 
> On units that have the over fire secondary. most stoves as you close the primary, you reduce the secondary. But the secondary stays open at a min setting. So when there is a draft to great, it pulls to much air thru the secondary. Causing a hot quick fire then leaving a large coal bed that won't burn down because the air is only coming thru the secondary. In effect whisking the heat from the top of the stove out the chimney.*



Yep... that there is exactly what is happening.
And described in a lot few words than I used also


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Ya know...
That reminds me of one of the things I tried that actually made things worse.
I closed of the little "boost air" hole that brings a small amount of air in at the bottom... effectively stopping any and all air from reaching the bottom of the fire box. When I did that I would find complete splits under the coal bed, slightly blackened but totally unburnt. I thought about opening it a bit more after that... but it's an unregulated opening and I was afraid it would make the fire uncontrollable.


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 27, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Ya know...
> That reminds me of one of the things I tried that actually made things worse.
> I closed of the little "boost air" hole that brings a small amount of air in at the bottom... effectively stopping any and all air from reaching the bottom of the fire box. When I did that I would find complete splits under the coal bed, slightly blackened but totally unburnt. I thought about opening it a bit more after that... but it's an unregulated opening and I was afraid it would make the fire uncontrollable.



Those little holes are called the 'Pilot' and they are there to... you guessed it... Improve EPA rating. You cant leave the door open more than 5 minutes according to EPA rules. So when you close the door you choke the fire and bust your test due to lack of oxygen. 

So most MFG came with this workaround in order to provide more oxygen for testing.

I've blocked mine. Because of my overdraft my pilot was drilling a big hole in the bottom log.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

You're not listening *Del*... I've been screwing around with this thing for over two months.
Disconnecting the secondary from the primary requires cutting holes in the ash drawer, because all the linkage is inside it under the stove. I did disconnect it as an experiment, and getting the two of them set to the correct balance was a continuous job as the fire burned. The better option was exactly what I did... adjust the secondary linkage so it was closed further (relative to the primary). Like I said, it helped some... until it got really, really cold out. The problem is this stove (and I suspect most EPA stoves because of the multiple air inlets) is designed to work a certain "way" under certain conditions. Changing those "ways" just creates other issues... sort'a the snowball effect. My draft is wicked excessive for this stove, it can only be made to work better for specific atmospheric conditions... but when those conditions change it all flies out the window. That's what I've been fighting... what works with today's conditions likely won't work with tomorrow's. It's enough to drive a fella' to drink!


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Fyrebug said:


> *I've blocked mine. Because of my overdraft my pilot was drilling a big hole in the bottom log.*



Mine has a baffle in front of it with 5 smaller holes in it, so it spreads the air out across the floor of the firebox.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

[. It's enough to drive a fella' to drink![/QUOTE]

I'm game, whiskey it is.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Del_ said:


> *Seems Gulland also offered fixes for the problem you are having.........the most applicable being the limiting of input air.*



I've done that...
I've come to the conclusion that the next "fix" would be to place a "restriction plate" in the top of the chimney (also one of the options Gulland offered)...
Sorry, that's not an option I'm feeling comfortable with currently... to difficult and inconvenient to "undo" if it don't work also.
I'll just install the DAKA this spring and haul my nightmare out to the shop.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

I had to do that on mine, installed a reducer 6 to 4. Helped some, basically allowed the stove not to melt. Then when the temps rose to 30-40*. A cold stove was imposable to lite. Basement full of smoke.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Yep, *stihly dan*, that there is my fear with installing a restriction plate.


----------



## zogger (Feb 27, 2013)

You need a secondary heat exchanger*** below X degrees, whatever works. For that you would need a temperature controlled exhaust diverter. (or just do it manually) Warmer temps, straight out, as it is installed now, you say the stove works well then, then when colder, diverted through the secondary (to slow it down and extract heat without starving the stove) before it hits the chimney.

***I can think off several ways to go there, and I know you can too.


----------



## Bushbow (Feb 27, 2013)

OK - I am totally intrigued and ccontinue to follow this thread hoping to here some magic solution for the Spider. 

If this has been tried or there is some engineering fopa that I am not understanding just poo poo the idea but how about DBL pipe flu dampers set oposite so the air flow has to do an "S" to get around them. This way in the deep cold you could have "some" more control over the super draft and run them wide open during the shoulder season. 

May take 3 but at least it is an inexpensive option??

Just trying to think outside the box - there has to be a solution to the super draft.


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

zogger said:


> You need a secondary heat exchanger*** below X degrees, whatever works. For that you would need a temperature controlled exhaust diverter. (or just do it manually) Warmer temps, straight out, as it is installed now, you say the stove works well then, then when colder, diverted through the secondary (to slow it down and extract heat without starving the stove) before it hits the chimney.
> 
> ***I can think off several ways to go there, and I know you can too.



I installed a magic heat in the flu as well. Got a lot of heat out of that. It also aided in restriction. The problem with the whole thing is when you have a hot chimney, the draft continues to increase. increasing fire temps, heating chimnet even more. So air has to be dampered, but as the chimney cools, the air slows. causing the chimney to get colder, slowing the air more. You could make the stove work great if you stood there 24-7 making slight adjustments as things changed.


----------



## rmount (Feb 27, 2013)

*A tale of 2 fires*

I think this is as close to a real world apples to apple comparison as possible.

My mother-in-law lives across the road from us. We both have EPA Pacific Energy mid size stoves. We both heat similar size houses, approx. 1200 sq. ft. We both have stoves on the first floor and both burn the same wood (I cut for both houses). Winter daytime temps here are usually around 14F, we have cold snaps down to -25F and warm spells up to around freezing. We burn steadily from mid-October to mid-April, January and February being the coldest time. Our house, built early 1900s was totally renovated 6 years ago and very well air sealed and insulated. In-laws house was built in the 1980s and is poorly insulated. We burn a bit over 2 cord a year, I empty the ash every 3 weeks or so and it is just ash. MIL burns over 5 cord a year, shovels out a bucket of coals and ash once or twice a week, in really cold spells she shovels out coals daily to make room for more wood. Our place is always comfortably warm. Her house is usually either hot or cold.

The stoves must be performing similarly, but in our case the performance is satisfactory for our heat requirement, for my MIL the performance cannot keep up with the heat requirement. Needless to say, I am very pleased with the EPA stove, my MIL, less so.

This does not give an answer to Whitespider's problem, but it does show how different performance can be for 2 very similar users.


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 27, 2013)

So, the question is... Who of you would be willing to spend $300 to $400 more for a stove or an accessory that monitors and regulate intake and output of a stove to maximize every stage of a burn cycle.

This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables. 

It's a serious question BTW...


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

zogger said:


> *You need a secondary heat exchanger… …I can think off several ways to go there, and I know you can too.*


Yes I can… but that doesn’t address the problem of the coal bed that (almost) never burns down.



Bushbow said:


> *OK - I am totally intrigued… how about DBL pipe flu dampers set opposite… May take 3… Just trying to think outside the box - there has to be a solution to the super draft.*


Well that’s certainly thinking outside the box… but I see a massive headache trying to keep them all adjusted.


In reality, the time for experiments is past… likely the extreme cold is gone until next January. We may see a couple mornings coming in just under 10[sup]o[/sup], but warming significantly throughout the day. I’m not willing to take chances and wait for January to roll around again just to find out… I have to go with what I know will work when it does. The DAKA furnace I bought from another member here is basically and air-tight firebox. It has a single intake that feeds the air under a cast iron grate… no secondary, no pilot, no multiple burns. The draft blower has a gate that can be closed off completely if desired… and that, in conjunction with a flue damper will give me total control of both the intake and exhaust. There is only one way for the air to get to the fire… underneath it… it’s a can’t miss system. In reality, that is the simple answer to the “super draft”.

Hey, I gave the clean burning EPA thing a good run… it just ain’t gonna’ work for me.
I’m not saying that as an “I-told-you-so”, I really wanted it to work (it was free after all)… simply, it-is-what-it-is, nothing more.


----------



## zogger (Feb 27, 2013)

Bushbow said:


> OK - I am totally intrigued and ccontinue to follow this thread hoping to here some magic solution for the Spider.
> 
> If this has been tried or there is some engineering fopa that I am not understanding just poo poo the idea but how about DBL pipe flu dampers set oposite so the air flow has to do an "S" to get around them. This way in the deep cold you could have "some" more control over the super draft and run them wide open during the shoulder season.
> 
> ...



That is exactly what I was getting it, and the easiest way to do it, sort of what you are describing, but without traditional dampers, just a longer more restricted exhaust travel to slow it down a little and suck more heat out.. A diverter to a boxed in plenum, with a lot of elbows in there, and an additional fan that can be turned on to extract this heat and move it into the living space. I dont think just three elbows would do it, based on his description. Half a dozen maybe, maybe more.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 27, 2013)

Fyrebug… $400 probably not… $300 maybe… $200 more likely… but I’m cheap 
Really, except for this last go-a-round, I’ve never seen the need for such a contraption… but I’m anti-gadget also


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 27, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Fyrebug… $400 probably not… $300 maybe… $200 more likely… but I’m cheap
> Really, except for this last go-a-round, I’ve never seen the need for such a contraption… but I’m anti-gadget also



There's no pleasing you... :yoyo:


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 27, 2013)

zogger said:


> That is exactly what I was getting it, and the easiest way to do it, sort of what you are describing, but without traditional dampers, just a longer more restricted exhaust travel to slow it down a little and suck more heat out.. A diverter to a boxed in plenum, with a lot of elbows in there, and an additional fan that can be turned on to extract this heat and move it into the living space. I dont think just three elbows would do it, based on his description. Half a dozen maybe, maybe more.



Thats what a magic heat is, except it has a thermostatic fan.


----------



## zogger (Feb 27, 2013)

Fyrebug said:


> So, the question is... Who of you would be willing to spend $300 to $400 more for a stove or an accessory that monitors and regulate intake and output of a stove to maximize every stage of a burn cycle.
> 
> This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables.
> 
> It's a serious question BTW...



The issue, main one, is stack height and pressure, the draft. Theres only so much you can do with dampers and intakes when the stack diameter and height remain a constant, but the demand and outside temps and wind, etc are such huge variable. You coulld do the passive diverter and secondary plenum like I suggest, or, you could have an active air intake like a forge, and a minimal stack diameter, then have it chip controlled via blower speed.

The only saving grace on an expensive forge blower setup like that would be a much smaller flue pipe to install, BUT, you are tied 100% to electricity all the time. Thats why I like the passive diverter ( I was already before this thread going to modify my own stove exhaust this way next summer when it gets rebuilt), and a manually operated system, flip a dang lever, just a big valve thing. Cold days, massive draft, divert it to the secondary long travel exchanger, mild days, straight through. Salt to taste for individuall wood choices and location, etc..


----------



## Tim Carroll (Feb 27, 2013)

practicaldesign said:


> Hi. To my knowledge fireplace inserts give little to no heat. I have seen people mod their inserts with larger plenums which do work but you basically destroy the fireplace and convert what's left into a chimney.



I am heating 2100 square feet in Wisconsin quite nicely with a Enviro Kodiak 1700 insert. The fire place heats the 2100 square feet on the ground level of my one story house very well. The basement is cool, low 60's, when I run it but that has not been an issue for us as we only use that are during weekdays when we are letting the gas furnace run. Every situation is different, my fireplace is located in the middle of the house and I run the fan on my forced air gas furnace on continous to get air circulation. These modern stoves need dry wood for sure to work well. I have no experience with pre EPA stoves, we had an old 1950's fireplace that was really worthless that I upgraded with the insert. The original fireplace had a 12" by 12" clay flue and was very efficient at sending all the heat out the flue. The insert is our main heat source at night and on weekends and we run with a natural gas furnace the rest of the time. We have cut our heating bills by over half and we are nice and warm when burning. Like I say, every situation is different and there is much trial and error trying to figure out how to heat with wood sometimes.

View attachment 281890


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 27, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Oh c’mon man, we’ve been through this. It’s because the primary air comes in at the top and is sucked up the flue before it ever makes it down to the coals. I even tightly wadded up some newspaper and put it in the ash pan (the primary and secondary air enter from the same chamber as the ash pan) and lit it, closed the ash drawer and watched the smoke come into the firebox… it was sucked up the flue before it ever made it to the coals. You should see the glass in my door, the lower half has turned to an etched milky color… starting right where the air reverses direction.
> 
> 
> It ain’t a mystery any more… it’s a serious overdraft condition (for this particular stove, anyway). If you sit and watch it burn it all makes sense. I get secondary burn flames shooting like a jet well down into the firebox (with the flue damper closed or open, or the draft control closed or open, or both closed or open) and it causes the fire to ignite on top and burn into coals rapidly. The coals collapse onto the wood and coals below (that ain’t getting any primary air to speak of) basically smothering them further. The problem is the suck is sucking harder than the intake can keep up with… most of the primary air just gets sucked out as soon as it enters.
> ...


I read your post and I read the article. It's well written but basically it says that if you connect a stove to a flue with a good draft, and you have no way to limit the air that goes into the stove sufficiently, then the stove will over fire and the wood will burn too fast. This really should surprise no one. There is no mention _whatsoever_ of excessive coaling, which is why I do not think this article describes the problem your system has. 

Further, If I leave the air control too far open on mine I will get a short fire and nothing but ash left - not a ton of coals. To do that I have to stop it _down_ too far - _too little air_. If there really was the amount of air flowing through your stove then there would be plenty to burn up those coals too. Perhaps something like the big blower blowing air over the thing is cooling it off after the secondary combustion ends and then the draft is reduced, I don't know. 

The article discusses stoves with fixed secondary air inlets and ones with a single control for both primary and secondary air - but which cannot be closed down all the way. It states that for this reason these stoves are not sealed. Such a design would be dumb and dangerous in my view, but by good fortune mine has a single lever that controls both primary and secondary and allows it to be pretty much closed off. The tag on the back says it meets 1990 EPA standards. You have to be able to limit the air going in - limiting the draft on the outlet flue is not the same thing. It sounds like the test may be poorly conceived, but that doesn't mean that all the designs to meet it are equal, or even that all the designers understood the requirements - I've designed too many products to meet tough standards and seen way too many engineers who simply didn't really understand the rules. I have a second stove with a fixed secondary air inlet, which is fortunately on a shorter glue, but it has bothered me since the moment I found out how it was designed.

Nonetheless, I'd bet if you modify the inlet control to do that your system will still have short burn times, will still build excessive coals and won't produce the heat you need. I do not believe the article describes your situation.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Feb 28, 2013)

Spidey, I know ya said you don't need proof, but here ya go anyway. I took a couple more pics as well. It was warmish today, so it wasn't fair to what you're complaining about, but with a bigger load, a little more open setting on the intake, the result is the same.

What I came home to 10 1/2 hours after loading, about 3/4 full:







Coal bed, before doing anything:






Shovel the ashes (get a few hot coals with em, but not many) out of the front 6" or so:






Rake coals out, coal bed is about 1-2" deep when I'm ready to fill it up:






Add some wood, leave the air wide open for a few minutes and have this:










Here's the part I want you to pay attention to. Most of us have reason to hate on the EPA. Strangled diesels, fried *** from ethanol gas, yada yada, but to cuss them up one side and down the other because of your experience with one stove, and pass judgement on all EPA stoves is flat wrong. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of these stoves performing well for their owners.

To be clear - I don't have any problem with you saying that your stove, in your application and circumstances was a disaster. It obviously was, for whatever reason. BUT - if you continue to rant that the whole design of EPA stoves in general is flawed and that they're all junk, I'll get my moderator hat on.

Nothing personal - I enjoy arguing with you.




Fyrebug said:


> So, the question is... Who of you would be willing to spend $300 to $400 more for a stove or an accessory that monitors and regulate intake and output of a stove to maximize every stage of a burn cycle.
> 
> This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables.
> 
> It's a serious question BTW...



Probably a question that should have it's own thread. I'm guessing a lot of people with an opinion are no longer watching this thread.


----------



## kgip2k (Feb 28, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> Spidey, I know ya said you don't need proof, but here ya go anyway. I took a couple more pics as well. It was warmish today, so it wasn't fair to what you're complaining about, but with a bigger load, a little more open setting on the intake, the result is the same.
> 
> What I came home to 10 1/2 hours after loading, about 3/4 full:
> 
> ...



Well actually I liked the write ups and what w-spider has done to to point out the possible deficiencies of the EPA stoves, as I am looking for another, and as a greenie, I thought these new EPA stoves may be the best thing... Now I don't know if one would be the best.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

The Florida Bungalow Syndrome article also discusses consensus standards such as CSA & UL. This is something I deal with constantly, and I would have to disagree. In theory it makes sense and sometimes it works well in practice. But it is difficult to write standards that are unambiguous and precise, and they often undergo not just a few revisions to correct errors, but constant revision which creates a moving target. Further, they almost always eventually move into the prescriptive mode (telling you how you must do it) rather than a descriptive mode (telling you what you must accomplish). This stifles innovation.

In concept I'd rather design to a test - I know what I have to make the product do and how I do it is up to me. In practice it is possible that the test is poorly conceived - I'd have to find and read the actual requirements to find out, and it isn't my field. The analogy I'd use is the EPA emissions regs and how the chainsaw manufactures address them. Some pass the tests with cat mufflers and limiter screws, some do it with strato engines. Both pass the test, but they are not equivalent products by any means. 

Here is a post I started on this topic well over a year ago - it generated very little interest: http://www.arboristsite.com/firewood-heating-wood-burning-equipment/187309.htm


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

kgip2k said:


> Well actually I liked the write ups and what w-spider has done to to point out the possible deficiencies of the EPA stoves, as I am looking for another, and as a greenie, I thought these new EPA stoves may be the best thing... Now I don't know if one would be the best.


Look carefully and find out how the stove works. I would not get one that didn't have full control of primary and secondary air if you have a tall flue. If you flue is shorter it may not be an issue - I'm running one with only primary control upstairs and it works great. It would probably melt into a puddle of slag on the downstairs flue. 

But I would still not consider a stove without a secondary combustion system.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> *To be clear - I don't have any problem with you saying that your stove, in your application and circumstances was a disaster. It obviously was, for whatever reason. BUT - if you continue to rant that the whole design of EPA stoves in general is flawed and that they're all junk, I'll get my moderator hat on.*



*Steve*,
I don't want you to have break out the "hat"... but seriously, I felt my findings and related posts in this thread had moved some distance away from "_the whole design of EPA stoves in general is flawed and that they're all junk_" thing. I know in past threads I've expressed that attitude... in this thread I was trying to be much more objective, admitting the circumstances of my installation and chimney design are a huge contributing factor to what I'm experiencing. I’m trying to be objective here. But I am sticking to the 20-year-old EPA testing requirements as being part of the problem also (just as the author of the article I linked to believes).

I agree 100% not every EPA certified stove installation acts like mine, and many (likely most) are doing wonderful jobs… heck, we have several members post to that affect, so I can’t claim they are all “junk” and be objective at the same time. But, on the other hand we have posts from members like *stihly dan* claiming to have experienced the exact same thing, spent several hours on the phone with the manufacture who told him to do everything opposite from the manual (his words), and just like mine, nothing worked to remedy the problems. He even references a dealer that says my problems (and his) are actually “_frequent_” with basement installations and recommends against it. And we have *Frybug* who also claims to have an overdraft problem, but has been able to mostly remedy the issues through some minor modifications. As well, in some of the other threads, there have been others claiming to have the same or similar problems.

So it does appear that my problems are not an isolated incident… and it also appears that under some extreme circumstances, such as mine and stihly dan’s, the problems cannot be remedied by any sort of modification or adjustment.
And to my thinking, a discussion of such should be more than appropriate in this forum… and could actually be helpful to some.

But if you feel this requires you to put on your moderator hat… so be it… it-is-what-it-is.






WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *I read your post and I read the article… basically it says…the stove will over fire and the wood will burn too fast… There is no mention whatsoever of excessive coaling, which is why I do not think this article describes the problem your system has.*


He’s talking about the complaint he gets from owners and is called in to diagnose, which is, “_they can’t get it to burn for more than four hours._” He isn’t in any way trying to list all the possible symptoms and whatnot.



> *Perhaps something like the big blower blowing air over the thing is cooling it off after the secondary combustion ends and then the draft is reduced…*


That has already been addressed in this and other threads… it has been eliminated as the cause.



> *The article discusses stoves with fixed secondary air inlets and ones with a single control for both primary and secondary air - but which cannot be closed down all the way… by good fortune mine has a single lever that controls both primary and secondary and allows it to be pretty much closed off. The tag on the back says it meets 1990 EPA standards.*


You better look again… because if it can be “closed” it would never receive EPA certification. If the owner can adjust the stove to the point of starving it from air, thereby creating excessive particulate emissions, it will not be certified. That there is just the facts.



> *I do not believe the article describes your situation.*


Then you sir are flat in denial, unable to look at this objectively, and bent on proving me wrong no matter what I say or describe. My problems are not an isolated incident, members in this thread, and other threads, have claimed to have the exact same or similar problems. You could be much more helpful if you would subscribe to that fact and stop trying to prove everything I say as being wrong or flawed… or trying to blame it on something as silly as a blower.


----------



## Jredsjeep (Feb 28, 2013)

Fyrebug said:


> So, the question is... Who of you would be willing to spend $300 to $400 more for a stove or an accessory that monitors and regulate intake and output of a stove to maximize every stage of a burn cycle.
> 
> This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables.
> 
> It's a serious question BTW...



if it could be shown that is was compatible with all stoves or more spacifically my stove i would consider it. like mentioned the lower the price the better, i have to balance what i will be getting out of it vs cost. if it would cut my 4 cord a year usage down to 3 1/2 or 2 can make a big differance on payback. if it could keep my house more comfortable and stable while being easy to operate for the wife or a totally passive system that would be even better. if it does not have to be plugged in that would be a huge plus. we loose power and a huge advantage is i dont have to worry about my family staying warm. if i cant run my stove without power or this gizmo being plugged in i would be out. if it has a bypass or runs itself that would be the way to go. (bi-metallic strips?)

i myself would be very interested in seeing a setup like that.

what Steve documented could have been my stove. mine is not a new looking now after 8 winters of being my primary heat soarce but the results have been very similar on my NC30.


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 28, 2013)

Tim Carroll said:


> Every situation is different, ... Like I say, every situation is different and there is much trial and error trying to figure out how to heat with wood sometimes.
> 
> View attachment 281890



I think the above describes the entire thread...


----------



## cmsmoke (Feb 28, 2013)

kgip2k said:


> Well actually I liked the write ups and what w-spider has done to to point out the possible deficiencies of the EPA stoves, as I am looking for another, and as a greenie, I thought these new EPA stoves may be the best thing... Now I don't know if one would be the best.



I would not let one mans personal vendetta against any type of product sway my decision.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

The reality...
I fully admit it is pig-headed of me to claim all EPA stoves are junk because mine, under my conditions, works like crap most of the time.
But to claim all EPA stoves work wonderfully, under all conditions, just because yours does, is just as pig-headed.
Your stove and/or operating conditions are not like mine, or for that matter, like that of anyone else.
And the sooner we all, including me, subscribe to that fact and realize that crap actually does happen... the more we all can learn from issues such as this.

And to you *cmsmoke*, in case you haven't noticed, in this thread I have tried extremely hard to step away from the "_vendetta_" and be objective. But after reading the above post, you... on the other hand...

Do you guys really believe I would spend all that time and energy and expense (although relatively low expense) converting the stove to a "stovace" and then *want* it to fail just so I could go on a ranting vendetta?
Really?... ... ... Really?


----------



## Fyrebug (Feb 28, 2013)

Guys, just so you understand how a wood stove is made from beginning to end... They are mass produced, they have to be. From conception, design, prototyping, engineering, testing, certification, marketing etc... You are looking at a minimum of $500K to bring to market.

Unlike any other engineered products out there, there are no simulation software that can predict how a particular model will behave - too many variables. Therefore designing a wood stove is a lot of gut feeling, years of experience, voodoo magic, prayers and a lot of time spent tweaking. From concept to market you are looking at over a year of labor. That's a lot of time for a square box made of metal. 

The MFG's are not going out of their way to piss you off, they are trying their best to meet regulations and consumers expectations knowing that possibly 8 out of 10 (hopefully more) will be happy with their purchase.

If you want a stove that behaves well for one particular installation, it will not happen. It will work good today, then tomorrow variables will change. Either that or you put so many automated controls into the product it is no longer affordable for the majority of consumers.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> You better look again… because if it can be “closed” it would never receive EPA certification. If the owner can adjust the stove to the point of starving it from air, thereby creating excessive particulate emissions, it will not be certified. That there is just the facts.


I've looked many times and I've operated the stove for years. It's sealed and I can shut it down with the controls. 

What you stated is not "fact", it is someone's opinion that you read in an article stating that the minimum burn rate must be done with the air control turned off. I'm found a copy of CSA B415 (supposedly the same) and I do not see that in the standard so far, rather it requires that the minimum burn rate category be less than a specified kg/hr. That is not the same thing. It states:

_For burn rates in Categories 1 through 3, the appliance shall be operated with the primary
air supply inlet control, or other mechanical control device, set at a predetermined position
necessary to obtain the average burn rate required for the category.​_
These types of standards in every industry are subject to interpretation and misinterpretation, and people spend whole careers fighting battles over the details. 

I have an EPA rated stove with primary and secondary air control, and I can shut it off. Therefore I call BS.


----------



## stihl sawing (Feb 28, 2013)

I bought a vermont dutchwood a few years ago and will agree with the spider that they ain't cracked up to what they are advertised. Mine will use just as much wood and still the same amount of smoke out of the chimney as my old stove. new stove backpuffs like crazy when the dampner is closed and catylic is used, We leave the dampner open all the time now, it got old getting up every night to open windows to let smoke out. Now mine does get plenty hot. it does heat the house well.

It's just we can't use it like they say to, I have opened windows and everything, it will backpuff when converter is used. so we just keep it open like an old type stove and it works fine. Ash pan has to be dumped every two days but it's not a very big pan. Old stove would burn all night with no problem, new one will burn but it will have little coals in the morning. the old stove did have a bigger firebox though. Even when we used the convertor it would burn down during the night, haven't seen a difference in leaving the dampner open. It used the same amount of wood either way.

Wife was ready to throw it out a couple years ago and we discovered it could be used like the old one. Now we can live with it. It does heat the house well just not like it's supposed to with the epa junk on it.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

CSA B415 and EPA test procedure 28 are not same _*WoodHeatWarrior*_.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

CSA B415 is a standard (what or where the test results must be), the EPA "standard" is available on their website and I do believe it is the same(?) as the CSA standard.
But if you want to read the step-by-step "how to preform the test" a certified lab must use, you have to submit a request in writing, stating the reason you need a copy, and send them a check (go figure).
If your stove control allows you to completely close off the air intake there is has to be a hidden, fixed and unregulated opening somewhere... to pass certification the stove must be tested at the lowest possible user setting. Anything else would render the reason for EPA certification a moot point... remember, the reason is to stop the stove (and user) from polluting like the old air-tights could be made to do (i.e. choking them down too much).


----------



## cmsmoke (Feb 28, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> The reality...
> I fully admit it is pig-headed of me to claim all EPA stoves are junk because mine, under my conditions, works like crap most of the time.
> But to claim all EPA stoves work wonderfully, under all conditions, just because yours does, is just as pig-headed.
> Your stove and/or operating conditions are not like mine, or for that matter, like that of anyone else.
> ...



I don't believe I have ever claimed to have the best, never had a problem or even owned an EPA for that matter.
Several others took your bashings the same way as I have and is evident by kgip2k's post. You have highjacked several other non-topic threads to get your jabs in as well. 
It could not have worked all that bad...you made it through the worst part of the winter.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

You seem to have read a lot more into my post than what I actually put in it *cmsmoke*.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> If your stove control allows you to completely close off the air intake there is has to be a hidden, fixed and unregulated opening somewhere... to pass certification the stove must be tested at the lowest possible user setting.


You keep repeating that, but you would need to actually read it in the standard to know, which you cannot get without paying for it. I couldn't find it either so I used the CSA B415 document, because based on these it appears to be equivalent:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf (See note at bottom of each page)

http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/approalt/alt-032.pdf

From what I have read in the standard it does not require the air control to be tested at the minimum mechanical limit. _It does not say that!_

You can deny that my stove works as I say it does, but you have never seen one so I'm going to trust my own lying eyes, thank you. 

I'm actually not trying to bust your stones, and the above link is to the thread I tried to start in December of 2011 that was about exactly the issue of stove designs without the ability to properly limit air intake. So I'm well aware that not all stoves work equally well under all conditions. However, the secondary combustion technology is sound and does work well if properly designed and used - this is separate from the particular EPA tests.


----------



## cmsmoke (Feb 28, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> You seem to have read a lot more into my post than what I actually put in it *cmsmoke*.



BS...Enlighten me.


----------



## greendohn (Feb 28, 2013)

My 1st experience with "EPA" tech. was on my cousins LOPI, aprox. 6ft. of single back pipe goin' into an old exterior masonry chimney maybe 15ft tall. Works like a charm! 1st time I witnessed the 2ndary burn tubes "gassing" I stood with me pie hole agape in amazement, that stove is still burnin' wood and burning it completely. A single draft control, I don't know what all it controls or shuts down when employed,,it must have "air wash" 'cause the glass/ceramic stays pretty clean.
Fast forward to last year. My best pal built a brand new stick built home, spray in insulation, single story,,air tight. I sang the praises of "EPA" 2ndary burn tubes, I also mentioned "CAT" stoves and admitted I'd not seen "CAT" stoves in action.
He picked up a new stove, air wash front door with the 2ndary burn tubes. A couple sticks of black pipe straight up into SS(with attic shield,stove installed to IN. code),,,3 sticks,,9ft of SS chimney thru the attic with a stick or two of SS to the rain cap. WELL seasoned hardwoods and his stove MAKES CHARCOAL!! LOTS OF IT!! I'm currently trying to convince him to use the outside air intake to see if any improvement is found. Thoughts,,ideas? His first thought was a GRATE to get air UNDER the fire!! I told him to save himself the trouble and 4-get the grate!! LOL,,
Looking into the 2ndary air is something I will tell him about, see if a mod to slow that down and create more primary air and improve his burning of coals..He currently gets 6 hour burn times at best with well seasoned hedge.
I find this to be a good thread and sure do hope yer new stove will be what yer looking for Spidey.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Feb 28, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> CSA B415 is a standard (what or where the test results must be), the EPA "standard" is available on their website and I do believe it is the same(?) as the CSA standard.
> But if you want to read the step-by-step "how to preform the test" a certified lab must use, you have to submit a request in writing, stating the reason you need a copy, and send them a check (go figure).
> If your stove control allows you to completely close off the air intake there is has to be a hidden, fixed and unregulated opening somewhere... to pass certification the stove must be tested at the lowest possible user setting. Anything else would render the reason for EPA certification a moot point... remember, the reason is to stop the stove (and user) from polluting like the old air-tights could be made to do (i.e. choking them down too much).




Here's the EPA test method, free: http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/m-28.pdf Some of it gave me a headache reading through, but just so I have a better idea what I'm talking about, I read it. Not sure I FULLY understand all of it, but I get most of it. What it does NOT require is running fully closed, only that it runs at a buirn rate of less than .8 kg/hr, with the allowance that if a unit can't be made to burn that slow, it allows 2 tests at the next highest level. I interpret that to mean that whatever setting gets those goals achieved can be used, whether it's full closed or partially open.

I didn't look for the test standards for CSA.





greendohn said:


> My 1st experience with "EPA" tech. was on my cousins LOPI, aprox. 6ft. of single back pipe goin' into an old exterior masonry chimney maybe 15ft tall. Works like a charm! 1st time I witnessed the 2ndary burn tubes "gassing" I stood with me pie hole agape in amazement, that stove is still burnin' wood and burning it completely. A single draft control, I don't know what all it controls or shuts down when employed,,it must have "air wash" 'cause the glass/ceramic stays pretty clean.
> Fast forward to last year. My best pal built a brand new stick built home, spray in insulation, single story,,air tight. I sang the praises of "EPA" 2ndary burn tubes, I also mentioned "CAT" stoves and admitted I'd not seen "CAT" stoves in action.
> He picked up a new stove, air wash front door with the 2ndary burn tubes. A couple sticks of black pipe straight up into SS(with attic shield,stove installed to IN. code),,,3 sticks,,9ft of SS chimney thru the attic with a stick or two of SS to the rain cap. WELL seasoned hardwoods and his stove MAKES CHARCOAL!! LOTS OF IT!! I'm currently trying to convince him to use the outside air intake to see if any improvement is found. Thoughts,,ideas? His first thought was a GRATE to get air UNDER the fire!! I told him to save himself the trouble and 4-get the grate!! LOL,,
> Looking into the 2ndary air is something I will tell him about, see if a mod to slow that down and create more primary air and improve his burning of coals..He currently gets 6 hour burn times at best with well seasoned hedge.
> I find this to be a good thread and sure do hope yer new stove will be what yer looking for Spidey.



I think the hedge is a contributing factor there. Has he tried running on lighter/"midgrade" wood with the same results?

A tightly sealed house is the main reason for an outside air kit, and that might help as well. If it runs better with a nearby window cracked, by all means add one.


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> Here's the EPA test method, free: http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/m-28.pdf Some of it gave me a headache reading through, but just so I have a better idea what I'm talking about, I read it. Not sure I FULLY understand all of it, but I get most of it. What it does NOT require is running fully closed, only that it runs at a buirn rate of less than .8 kg/hr, with the allowance that if a unit can't be made to burn that slow, it allows 2 tests at the next highest level. I interpret that to mean that whatever setting gets those goals achieved can be used, whether it's full closed or partially open.
> 
> I didn't look for the test standards for CSA.


Thank you! That looks like the identical requirements as in CSA B415.


----------



## greendohn (Feb 28, 2013)

I think the hedge is a contributing factor there. Has he tried running on lighter/"midgrade" wood with the same results?

yeah, he also burns ash,cherry,walnut and some hack berry which he burns while up and about with same results. I have tried to encourage him to not stuff it so full until bed time/goin' to work. I get lots of un-burnt charcoal in my OWB if/when I feed it too much wood and demand for heat is low..I've mentioned that about my stove as a reference,,he's/we are still on a learning curve with this stove..

A tightly sealed house is the main reason for an outside air kit, and that might help as well. If it runs better with a nearby window cracked, by all means add one.[/QUOTE]

Rite on,,it seems to draft okay, no smoke when door is open and hot flu. No need for open windows and sech,,The outside air is something I've read about here and suggested because it wouldn't cost much to try. The stove is in the attached, well insulated garage and he leaves the door open to the house to help dist. heat. His house is very tight and well insulated,,if draft were a problem I would have personally installed out side draft my self outta pocket. Our friendship goes back to the 70's, we're like brothers except we aint never had a feud! LOL! The option of outside air is an option on this stove and a requirement in some regions by "code", I believe. I'm just thinkin' this option may very well allow the stove to perform better as the option was "engineered" into the stove,,and I can't convince him to load less wood in the beast!! It seems to be a pretty good stove and he doesn't have the owners manual any more,,

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## mooseracing (Feb 28, 2013)

greendohn said:


> I'm currently trying to convince him to use the outside air intake to see if any improvement is found. Thoughts,,ideas? His first thought was a GRATE to get air UNDER the fire!! I told him to save himself the trouble and 4-get the grate!! LOL,,



I use outside air and still get a ton of coals. I use a Napoleon 1400 that is supposed to heat a larger house, it works fine at about freezing temps. After that all I do is layer up, as when it is down in the single digits the house is in the low 50's running the stove all day. I'm going to a bigger stove to at least give me room to work with coals, more heat, and longer burn times. 

I can't remove any brick since it holds the baffles up. Also the out of control burns in a high draft situation seem unsafe from my viewpoint.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

Sorry… I was working on the road today.



Steve NW WI said:


> *Here's the EPA test method, free: http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/m-28.pdf ...it does NOT require is running fully closed*


Wow, I spent over two hours on the EPA website last weekend trying to find that, and you come up with it in a couple hours… my internet search skills obviously need some refining. I actually had that publication (in digital form) at one time but lost it when my work laptop crashed. Because I couldn’t find it, I went strictly on memory, and I was dead positive it required testing at the lowest possible setting. I even knew exactly where to find it… under the “Test Run Requirements” section. I quickly found it in your link by using my PDF reader search function for the words “lowest possible” in section 8.1.1.3.2. But it seems I either misread it before, or my memory is failing a bit, (or maybe I _wanted_ it to read a certain way, and convinced myself that it did) because this is how it’s worded…


> 8.1.1.3.2 Evidence that a wood heater cannot be operated at a burn rate less than 0.80 kg/hr shall include documentation of two or more attempts to operate the wood heater in burn rate Category 1 and fuel combustion has stopped, or results of two or more test runs demonstrating that the burn rates were greater than 0.80 kg/hr when the air supply controls were adjusted to the *lowest possible position or settings.*


 I was wrong… testing at lowest possible user setting is not required… but can be used for documentation purposes if needed… 

My apologies to you *WoodHeatWarrior*.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

cmsmoke said:


> *BS...Enlighten me.*



No... I will not... arguing with you over how I posted something verses how you read it adds nothing of value here.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

*greendohn* and *mooseracing*,
I’d like to take this opportunity to personally welcome you guys to the *Excessive Coal Makers Club*.
Our small membership is slowly growing… and as President _de facto_ I will soon be calling our first club meeting to elect proper officers.
I hope to see you then :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

I was thinking about it on the way home Spidey, and this thread has been worthwhile. I tried to get such a discussion going some time ago but it didn't take. I think we've actually made some progress in figuring out some fundamental issues of these types of stove that many may not have realized, and it makes a big difference in how they perform.

The next thing I want to try to understand is this coaling issue. It doesn't make sense to me that really high airflows through the top of the firebox (from primary to flue) would leave the bottom of the box so starved for oxygen that it coals up. However, you and other here are having a coaling issue. Short burn times I get, but this part I don't.


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *However, you and other here are having a coaling issue. Short burn times I get, but this part I don't.*



I understand that...
Like I posted in response to *Steve NW WI* way back on page 4…


> *In fact, most of the time it don't even make sense.*


----------



## Chris-PA (Feb 28, 2013)

Of the people who are having excessive coaling, is there some common thread - how many are running flue dampers, what kind of flue height is involved?


----------



## Whitespider (Feb 28, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *Of the people who are having excessive coaling, is there some common thread - how many are running flue dampers, what kind of flue height is involved?*



Let's add another question or two...
Where do you live? (general area is OK... looking for climate, elevation and whatnot)
And do you notice the problem (or problems) get better or worse with temperature (or other ambient conditions)?


----------



## stihly dan (Feb 28, 2013)

kgip2k said:


> Well actually I liked the write ups and what w-spider has done to to point out the possible deficiencies of the EPA stoves, as I am looking for another, and as a greenie, I thought these new EPA stoves may be the best thing... Now I don't know if one would be the best.



No the EPA stoves are great stoves. Much better than the old ones. You just have to undestand the application you need, and get one that fits. They are not the same. some have cats, some have overfire, some have both. There are down draft stoves, there are stoves with no overfire or cat. Like the harmen, Its kind of a maze that burns the smoke.(I don't know what to call that.) I wish this thread was out 2 yrs ago, would have helped in my fight with the stove. Which I never mentioned worked perfect in someone elses 1st floor.


----------



## noodle (Feb 28, 2013)

Del_ said:


> I've fooled around making the secondary combustion air input adjustable on our F600cb. From the factory I don't believe secondary air is adjustable. If secondary air is cut off after the flammable gasses are burnt it is obvious that the bed of coals is burnt down faster. Stove top temperature also noticeably rises.
> 
> I believe a slight increase in efficiency is gained but it takes more adjusting and if the firebox is loaded with more wood on top of the coals and the secondary air is not opened back up of course secondary combustion suffers.



Del, I have the same stove as you do. Forgive my ignorance. what adjustments can be made aside from the obvious primary air on our stove? What kind of burn times are you getting on a loaded stove (down to usable coals)?


----------



## woodchuck357 (Feb 28, 2013)

*I am chief wood supplier and stove "expert" for*

six homes. The stoves range from a cast iron Chinesse copy of a "king heater" to a non-cat epa certified POS. No outdoor burners. The epa cert stove has been re-enginered to alow complete control of all air intake, plus air flow has been introduced under the fire bed to burn up the coals when they get to that excessive coaling stage. It doesn't operate automaticly, but it now makes heat when we want it to. And will coal up and smolder all night when we want it to.

By the way, the king heater copy will shut down enough to completly choke off a roaring dry wood fire.


----------



## pennsywoodburnr (Mar 1, 2013)

Man, this thread is probably the most interesting one I've seen in a while. Can't wait to see what the outcome of whitespider's dilemma is. Keeping my fingers crossed that you find a solution man.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> *I wish this thread was out 2 yrs ago, would have helped in my fight with the stove. Which I never mentioned worked perfect in someone elses 1st floor.*



Like I said, my brother's FIL, who gave me the stove, thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. According to him it made more heat, burned longer, and used less wood than any stove he'd ever owned before it... and he never had a coal build-up issue. He wouldn't lie about it, he ain't that type of guy (he was my boss for a short time before my brother and his wife took over the business)... he's a straight-up guy. Hearing him describe it, and how well it worked, you'd think he was talking about something different than he gave me. And, again like I said, he had it installed in a single story, flat-roof with a darn short chimney.

Now I wouldn't say that a tall chimney, or a basement installation would automatically be a problem with this stove or any other EPA design. The problem isn't the chimney, or the basement; the problem (I now believe) is an overdraft... and a taller chimney is just _more likely_ to have more draft, especially in cold weather. In my case, with a tall, _massive_ brick chimney running from basement floor up through the center of the house (always very warm), it has more draft than will be seen in most other installations... heck, it has more draft than any other I've ever had. Remember, it was originally designed for a big old coal-fired furnace around 1900.

Likely, if I would put both the primary and secondary air on separate controls, and continued using the flue damper, I could find the "sweet spot" where it would operate correctly... today. But tomorrow I'd have to find it again... and the next day... and the next. It would be a nightmare trying to keep up with changing atmospheric conditions, and changing firebox conditions as the fire burned down... and be a horror story during real cold weather trying to balance three controls. Like I've said, during warmer weather (say 35-40[sup]o[/sup] and above) the thing runs pretty darn good... heats for hours on just a few sticks, complete burns without excessive coaling, and will cause the wife to open doors. And again, like I said, I was very impressed during the early part of the heating season... our wood consumption was barely measurable during November. Heck, last night it was in the upper-30's, no wind, I loaded it about 3/4 full around 7:00 PM and closed the flue damper about 2/3's (in this weather I could go back to using the stove draft control)... this morning, 4:00 AM, 9 hours later, it's 26[sup]o[/sup] outside, the house is 70[sup]o[/sup] (the steel was uncomfortably hot to the touch) and there was just a few coals in the back, just enough to easily get a fire going... and likely the wife won't add any more wood all day, as temp are supposed to be in the upper 30's again. In my book, that's exceptional performance, but it don't remain exceptional as outside temps fall. When it gets cold enough, and the draft increases, the thing just flat quits heating and starts making charcoal... I mean stops heating, I can lay my hand on the bare steel.

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.


addendum; I want to add that my whining, complaining and bad-mouthing of EPA stoves this winter has been driven by pure frustration. I had no plausible explanation for what was going on, so I simply lashed-out at the object of my frustration and anger. Now that I actually have an explanation that "fits", that makes some sort of sense, my frustration level is several octaves below what it was... a certain amount of objectivity and reason has returned.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

I still don't understand the coaling in high draft conditions and I still want to explore that. I guess the most basic thing is what makes coals? I always thought it was burning without enough oxygen - that's how they make charcoal, and my stove only makes a lot of coals when it's closed down too far.

Is it really possible to have so much draft that the air coming out of the primary/airwash and secondary outlets bypasses right over to the flue opening, and leaves the bottom of the firebox starved for air? I just can't buy that yet - it's a small box and I can't see the air stratifying and becoming stagnant, it would have to mix plenty in there. 

Perhaps it's better to think of it as a wood gasification system, which it is. Is it getting the wood so hot that the volatile stuff is all cooking out early leaving only coal? But I still don't see why they won't burn up with lots of airflow.

Are these coal beds really buried under ash? Maybe the burning conditions early on are making a lot of ash and that is sealing off the wood below it? What makes a lot of ash?

EDIT: Maybe that is it - with no limit on secondary air the wood at the top of the firebox is incinerated to ash, which buries the lower wood, and then that just smolders. With my stove both primary and secondary are limited so they stay more in proportion.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

I had a hard time understanding it also *WoodHeatWarrior*, until I put the newspaper “smoke bomb” inside the pedestal where the air enters. I could watch the smoke reverse direction and head out the flue well before it made it to the bottom of the box… the overdraft just makes the flue a huge vacuum cleaner. By changing the stove draft control, or the flue damper, I could make the smoke go a little lower, or higher, in the box before it reversed… but it never made it to the coals. I played around with it for most of a morning and just couldn’t get it to work. In my case the draft is so strong that no matter how I tweak, the draft just over powers the inlet… I can’t get the relationship between intake and exhaust to balance properly.

When it gets really, really cold and my draft goes wild… it pulls the incoming air out before it can get to the fire, and sucks any heat being made right along with it. And pulling the heat out just compounds the problem… it becomes a charcoal maker. It doesn’t matter where things are set; the relationship of incoming to vacuum can’t be balanced. The only way I can see to change that (and I’ve tried everything else mentioned, plus more) would be to open the holes to the primary air (not the main hole where air enters the stove intake system, but the holes where air actually enters the firebox chamber) to increase velocity/volume in relation to the draft (at any given setting)... but heck, that could make things worse. The problem, and my fear is, the stove would way over-fire… especially during warmer weather with a somewhat reduced draft. Another option would be to place a restriction in the _top_ of the chimney… but then there’s the possibility of smoke filled house during times of reduced draft. And besides, right or wrong, I have an appliance shared chimney… I have to be extremely careful about chimney modifications (admittedly, that does place limits on my options to some degree).

I should add... what few coals are kept live is only because of the "pilot", or "boost" air because when i plugged that problem got much worse... I found complete unburnt splits under the coal bed.

Maybe a shorter explanation would be that the extreme over-draft is turning my firebox into a vacuum chamber.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Like I said, my brother's FIL, who gave me the stove, thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. According to him it made more heat, burned longer, and used less wood than any stove he'd ever owned before it... and he never had a coal build-up issue. He wouldn't lie about it, he ain't that type of guy (he was my boss for a short time before my brother and his wife took over the business)... he's a straight-up guy. Hearing him describe it, and how well it worked, you'd think he was talking about something different than he gave me. And, again like I said, he had it installed in a single story, flat-roof with a darn short chimney.
> 
> Now I wouldn't say that a tall chimney, or a basement installation would automatically be a problem with this stove or any other EPA design. The problem isn't the chimney, or the basement; the problem (I now believe) is an overdraft... and a taller chimney is just _more likely_ to have more draft, especially in cold weather. In my case, with a tall, _massive_ brick chimney running from basement floor up through the center of the house (always very warm), it has more draft than will be seen in most other installations... heck, it has more draft than any other I've ever had. Remember, it was originally designed for a big old coal-fired furnace around 1900.
> 
> ...



You have probably already talked about why you haven't tried this before, and I think it was stihly dan that suggested it before too, but I strongly suspect that a barometric draft regulator would help immensely. Limit your continually varying draft to a set # irregardless of weather conditions, basically, turn your tall chimney into a short one. Wouldn't be difficult or expensive to do this, it'd prove or disprove your current theory...

I know for me, I was really hesitant to install one (BDR) But decided to install everything as per Yukons instructions, change it later if I didn't like it. Well, after living with a BDR on a wood furnace for a couple years now, I'm a believer. All the hype about cooling the chimney too much, making creosote, etc, have proved unfounded for me. It just works...

Just as an FYI, I'm running -.02 to -.04" WC most of the time, the Yukon runs real sweet there, if I hold the BDR shut, my draft shoots up over -.10, even -.15" WC in a heartbeat. (I have a Dwyer Mark II manometer permanently mounted) That's with 30' tall 8" chimney.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> I had a hard time understanding it also *WoodHeatWarrior*, until I put the newspaper “smoke bomb” inside the pedestal where the air enters. I could watch the smoke reverse direction and head out the flue well before it made it to the bottom of the box… the overdraft just makes the flue a huge vacuum cleaner. By changing the stove draft control, or the flue damper, I could make the smoke go a little lower, or higher, in the box before it reversed… but it never made it to the coals. I played around with it for most of a morning and just couldn’t get it to work. In my case the draft is so strong that no matter how I tweak, the draft just over powers the inlet… I can’t get the relationship between intake and exhaust to balance properly.
> 
> When it gets really, really cold and my draft goes wild… it pulls the incoming air out before it can get to the fire, and sucks any heat being made right along with it. And pulling the heat out just compounds the problem… it becomes a charcoal maker. It doesn’t matter where things are set; the relationship of incoming to vacuum can’t be balanced. The only way I can see to change that (and I’ve tried everything else mentioned, plus more) would be to open the holes to the primary air (not the main hole where air enters the stove intake system, but the holes where air actually enters the firebox chamber) to increase velocity/volume in relation to the draft (at any given setting)... but heck, that could make things worse. The problem, and my fear is, the stove would way over-fire… especially during warmer weather with a somewhat reduced draft. Another option would be to place a restriction in the _top_ of the chimney… but then there’s the possibility of smoke filled house during times of reduced draft. And besides, right or wrong, I have an appliance shared chimney… I have to be extremely careful about chimney modifications (admittedly, that does place limits on my options to some degree).
> 
> ...




I understand your smoke bomb test, but where the visible smoke travels to and having enough oxygen to burn are not necessarily the same thing. I think the idea of it turning the firebox into a vacuum chamber is going too far with the idea. It can be at no lower than the atmospheric pressure in your basement.

You have also said that you get giant jets of flame from the secondary air outlets (was this with the primary wide open?), and I think this is a clue. Without the means to limit secondary air, combined with a strong draft, it's gonna burn like crazy up top. The airwash/primary might be getting sucked right up the flue before it gets to the bottom as the outlet is right there. So then you have lots of secondary air and effectively even less primary air as it is not getting to the bottom. If that is the case then with that much draft the primary air setting becomes irrelevant. The burning top of the load may bury the lower logs in ash pretty fast. 

As for the flue damper - it does not change the static pressure differential much at all (that is based on the temperature difference), so up to the point where it begins to restrict flow it doesn't do much. I assume if you messed with it constantly you could hold it at the right spot, but as you said it is unlikely to stay there long. I suspect it would do much better if you could make a secondary air control.

With a stove where both primary and secondary are restricted together then at least the secondary cannot blast the top with too much air. The burning would be more controlled and longer and the heat would not be pulled out the flue too fast as the total air flow through the stove is restricted.

I would bet that the exact shape and location of the primary air ducts is probably quite important, ans the performance of different stoves under those conditions may vary a lot.

Last, these stoves were intended to have the air controls adjusted at least somewhat during the burn, so I doubt they will work the way you want them to. 

And finally, I apologize - I was wrong in saying your system had no draft and that your mods may the the problem, as it sounds like there is a design deficiency. I also apologize for my tone.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

brenndatomu said:


> *You have probably already talked about why you haven't tried this before...*



Yes I have, and in this thread actually.
A quick recap...
Besides the obvious, such as massive amounts of unnecessary (warm) air being pulled from the house, I have an appliance shared chimney... and that, along with the varying demands of a wood-fired appliance would make it's operation erratic at best. Although it might still be worth a try, our extreme cold weather (and for the most part, my extreme over-draft) is now gone until next January... the time for experiments is past. I have a different wood heater sitting in the shop, of different design feeding air under a grate where it will be forced up through the coals (basically an air-tight furnace, not an EPA type stove). It will be installed sometime this spring, long before cold weather rolls back around. This thread is now mostly informational... I'm no longer looking for solutions to the current set-up.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *I think the idea of it turning the firebox into a vacuum chamber is going too far with the idea.*



Just using that as an analogy.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *You have also said that you get giant jets of flame from the secondary air outlets (was this with the primary wide open?), and I think this is a clue. Without the means to limit secondary air, combined with a strong draft, it's gonna burn like crazy up top.*



Like I've said, the stove has one control lever that operates the two separate primary and secondary gates at one time. I did disconnect the secondary from the primary and messed around with it a couple of different times... I could make it better, not great, and it required constant adjustment as conditions changed. Finally I went with the best option... I modified the linkage so the secondary gate was closed more (in relation to the primary gate) than the factory setting. Completely closing the secondary after the secondary burn shut down seemed to help a little, not much, with temperatures in the teens... but made no noticeable improvement when temperatures dropped into single digits.

That's when the problems become ridiculous, single digit temperatures... and down-right stupid when it dropped below zero. At temps around zero, with the wind blowing, I could get the metal of the firebox hot for maybe 45 minutes, then the fire would collapse into a bed of coals, the secondary would shut down, and within a few minutes you could lay your hand on the bare metal. No matter what I tried, no matter how much I messed with it, it would just stop heating. The only thing to do, if we wanted to stay warm, was feed more wood to it, which increased the size of the coal bed until I had to shovel out the box... and most of the coals I was shoveling were dead, or near dead.

I think most of you can understand my frustration level after two months of that... right? I even contemplated shooting the darn thing with my .44 :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Yes I have, and in this thread actually.
> A quick recap...
> Besides the obvious, such as massive amounts of unnecessary (warm) air being pulled from the house, I have an appliance shared chimney... and that, along with the varying demands of a wood-fired appliance would make it's operation erratic at best. Although it might still be worth a try, our extreme cold weather (and for the most part, my extreme over-draft) is now gone until next January... the time for experiments is past. I have a different wood heater sitting in the shop, of different design feeding air under a grate where it will be forced up through the coals (basically an air-tight furnace, not an EPA type stove). It will be installed sometime this spring, long before cold weather rolls back around. This thread is now mostly informational... I'm no longer looking for solutions to the current set-up.



Sorry, I guess I missed it somehow.
There is very little if any warm air pulled from the house if you install a make-up air pipe ending near the BDR. (path of least resistance) Putting a J trap on the end of it keeps the cold air from flooding the basement. 
A shared chimney makes no difference if the BDR is installed directly on the wood furnace flue pipe. It's gonna hold a steady, automatically regulated draft on whatever is upstream from it. It would have been an interesting experiment, just sayin...
Anyways...I actually agree with your current theory. And, I'm sure you and the Mrs. will be much happier with the new furnace.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *And finally, I apologize - I was wrong in saying...*



It's all good... always has been... 
Besides, it's never just one person's "fault", I'm fully able to recognize my part in creating "friction"... my apologies extended to you also.


----------



## slowp (Mar 1, 2013)

Have you ever considered beefing up the insulation in your house?

I have a 3 year old "bungalow" style house...1400 square feet. My stove is beyond the national EPA requirements. Our state went with more restrictions. My house is well insulated and fairly air tight. It has small vents that pull in fresh air when a fan goes on.

The Quadrafire Millenium stove was installed by the dealer. It draws in air from a hole in the floor which is piped into the stove. The chimney is pipe, and probably right around that 15' heighth. Our winter climate temps average just above freezing, but we can get cold snaps. I'd call it mild. 

The stove works fine. In fact, I usually let it go out or just put in enough wood to keep it warm. Otherwise, the house is too warm. 

My friends have a built in the 1980s house. Their's is two story and has a daylight basement. It is super insulated and designed as a passive solar house. They had trouble with their new WA EPA certified stove smoking. The dealer--same as mine, came out and the problem was the chimney. Their chimney is brick and stone. They put out the big bucks to have it relined, and they no longer have smoke. They have a woodstove in the basement AND a woodstove upstairs. The upstairs stove is the new one. I think their house is about 2000 sq. ft. and they burn 4 cords a year--mostly Doug fir. They keep their house too warm. They are at a higher elevation than me. I'm at 1000 ft. they are at 1500 and yes, that 500 feet is a difference out here. 

We're not all unhappy and the stoves do work in our cases. Their case is interesting. They were ready to travel to Montana or Idaho to get a non-WA certified stove, but it seems their chimney was the problem.

Like most folks here, we mostly burn softwoods. That's what is easily found. I guess I don't understand this coaling thing. I get glowing coals, which throw out heat, and turn into ash. That's what I thought fire did.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

slowp said:


> *Have you ever considered beefing up the insulation in your house?*


Sure... and I'm doing that a bit at a time, and I seal-up potential drafts before winter.
I'm not seeing how that would fix the stove problems though, like it going cold when all logic says it should be hot... but...



> *We're not all unhappy and the stoves do work in our cases.*


I'm in no way arguing that... or discounting it.



> *I guess I don't understand this coaling thing. I get glowing coals, which throw out heat, and turn into ash. That's what I thought fire did.*


Which should help you understand the frustration I've been experiencing.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Mar 1, 2013)

The more I read, the more the dim bulb in the back of my mind is lighting up - scary, I know!

What I think is going on is that under "normal" draft conditions, the intake air has enough density and or velocity to reach the bottom of the stove and burn down the coal bed. At high draft, the air isn't allowed down far enough to reach the coals, instead just sucked straight out the stack.

Here's a crude drawing to help illustrate what I'm saying:







While I'm thinking more and more that the baro regulator would fix this problem, and likely some of the others' similar problems, I personally think they're a "band aid" solution. Dumping cold air up the chimney just seems wrong to me. I don't have a better idea, yet - gimme some idle time and a few cold ones and something might come to me.

I LIKE it when we can get back to trying to think through problems rather than slinging barbs at each other. There's a lot of sharp minds on here, and someone is liable to come up with a better mousetrap.


----------



## slowp (Mar 1, 2013)

I still don't get the frustration with coals. What part am I missing? Wood burns, turns into glowing coals, then the coals burn down into ash....right? It is a normal process. The coals throw off heat too. The ash is ash. I can't see how any stove could not do that. Cleanout of the ash totally depends on what is burned.
Our native maple makes a lot more ash than our Doug-fir. I don't see any stove brand changing that.

When I burn slash, I get coals and ash. What am I missing that causes this to be abnormal?


----------



## Steve NW WI (Mar 1, 2013)

slowp said:


> When I burn slash, I get coals and ash. What am I missing that causes this to be abnormal?



Part of it is the fact that without enough air, those coals will sit there for a good long while. Go out to a burn pile 2, 3 days later and barring rain, it won't be hot next to it anymore, but a little raking around will still find a bunch of coals under there.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

slowp said:


> I still don't get the frustration with coals. What part am I missing? Wood burns, turns into glowing coals, then the coals burn down into ash....right? It is a normal process. The coals throw off heat too. The ash is ash. I can't see how any stove could not do that. Cleanout of the ash totally depends on what is burned.
> Our native maple makes a lot more ash than our Doug-fir. I don't see any stove brand changing that.
> 
> When I burn slash, I get coals and ash. What am I missing that causes this to be abnormal?


This is what I think is the issue. I don't mind a good bed of coals, it radiates a lot of heat. But if that bed of coals is in a fire brick lined stove covered with a thick layer of ash, then it is sealed up and not radiating much. The reduced oxygen will let it cool off and smoulder. I think the strong draft and lots of secondary air from the manifold above the fire is burning the top of the load fast, and covering the bottom logs with ash. 

Slowing down the secondary air and reducing the burn rate should prevent this, but not all stoves give any control over the secondary air.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> The more I read, the more the dim bulb in the back of my mind is lighting up - scary, I know!
> 
> What I think is going on is that under "normal" draft conditions, the intake air has enough density and or velocity to reach the bottom of the stove and burn down the coal bed. At high draft, the air isn't allowed down far enough to reach the coals, instead just sucked straight out the stack.
> 
> ...



It does seem wrong, I agree, but it works. And I have had zero chimney/draft issues. 
BDRs probably work the best, or at least make the most difference with tall or high draft chimneys.
They sure are nice for those wild weather days. Large temp swings, wind, etc.

I'd say your drawing is exactly right Steve. Basically, by lowering the draft, your are slowing it's velocity through the stove, allowing designed air flow patterns to take place in the stove, and it gives the heat some residence time inside the stove/heat exchanger/stove pipe so that the heat has time to transfer to the house instead of zipping up to meet your chimney cap.

A properly installed/adjusted BDR allows you to run your wood burner in its "sweet spot" all the time. And, it's almost impossible to overfire the stove too...


----------



## Jredsjeep (Mar 1, 2013)

i cant say for sure but if i had to bet i think adding a restriction in the intake could be detrimental to the fire. you would be putting the fire box in a vacuum condition where would reduce the amount of air burned but be far more likely to flare up if the door seal is not perfect or when you open the door. 

i know a barometric draft might not be the most ideal inside the house but could it be fed by an outside air source so its not pulling the warm air out of your house? it would just be sending the cool outside air up. that can create some separate problems though such as creosote like mentioned. 

i imagine your chimney drafts even better if you have some wind going, and from what you describe it is fairly windy in your location. a little bit of fluid or air flow equations can show that. is your chimney outlet located at the peak? could the wind passing over your house be creating a low pressure area sort of like the wing of an aircraft?

do you have a chimney cap with a screen at all? i am wondering if that could help slow things down. i am far from an expert and just throwing out some of the more crazy idears i got besides the standard ones that have been mentioned.

maybe you need a bi-metallic strip linked up to a butterfly valve located at the top of your chimney to regulate the flow according to outside air temperature.:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

*L.O.L.*
I'm lovin' the drawing *Steve*, but ya' forgot the air wash/primary, so I added it in red.






It's super easy to tell where the air wash/primary is reversing direction by looking at the glass on my door.
The bottom two-thirds is now a white milky, translucent color... the glass is permanently etched because it wasn't getting the cooling effect of the air wash.
When I got that thing it had been used a few years, yet the glass was crystal clear... and it stayed clear right up until the cold weather and operational problems started.
The transition from clear glass to etched glass is exactly where the newspaper smoke reversed direction during my "smoke bomb" test... which was very enlightening, the upper third (or maybe a bit more) of the firebox filled with thick, rapidly swirling, grayish-yellow smoke, the lower two-thirds barely even turned hazy... and even that took a couple of minutes before it did.


----------



## mooseracing (Mar 1, 2013)

slowp said:


> I still don't get the frustration with coals. What part am I missing? Wood burns, turns into glowing coals, then the coals burn down into ash....right? It is a normal process. The coals throw off heat too.



I can't heat the house because of the coals. IF I try to run the stove at mid level heating capacity all that happens is I end up with 8-12" of coals. I can't put wood in, the coals aren't giving off enough heat but to keep the stove steel at about 200 degrees. I burn on low and get an 8hr burn, there's less coals but not enough heat on the cold days. The secondary air needs to be blocked once the secondaries aren't burning, then the air can come in the bottom and burn the coals.


The cap with a screen doesn't change a thing for me. I removed mine.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

*Jredsjeep*,
Brick chimney, about 20-22 inches (don't remember exactly now) square on the inside, wide open at the top, about 5 feet above the peak of a hip roof, protruding through the roof at a hip junction.


----------



## slowp (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> This is what I think is the issue. I don't mind a good bed of coals, it radiates a lot of heat. But if that bed of coals is in a fire brick lined stove covered with a thick layer of ash, then it is sealed up and not radiating much. The reduced oxygen will let it cool off and smoulder. I think the strong draft and lots of secondary air from the manifold above the fire is burning the top of the load fast, and covering the bottom logs with ash.
> 
> Slowing down the secondary air and reducing the burn rate should prevent this, but not all stoves give any control over the secondary air.



OK, I don't have that happening. I have ash on the bottom, then a layer of coals on top, and it radiates a lot of heat through the front of the stove. Wonder why it doesn't happen here? Oh well...

My stove has an air intake below the door. Maybe that helps.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

slowp said:


> OK, I don't have that happening. I have ash on the bottom, then a layer of coals on top, and it radiates a lot of heat through the front of the stove. Wonder why it doesn't happen here? Oh well...
> 
> My stove has an air intake below the door. Maybe that helps.


I don't have it either. If I stop it down too far I'll get lots of coals but they're exposed. If I open it too far I'll get a hot fire and nothing but ash. It's a 30' insulated SS flue inside a large stone chimney. 

And yes, if I open the door when I have it stopped down and burning well it sure does flare up. 

I think the difference is:

1. Lots of draft
2. Insufficient control of secondary air intake
3. Variations between stoves.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> *L.O.L.*
> I'm lovin' the drawing *Steve*, but ya' forgot the air wash/primary, so I added it in red.



Thanks for adding that - it was something I overlooked. The results still come out about the same. What might help some others understand what I'm starting to get here - note what happens when the overdraft is sucking that cool air out the top. Instead of heating the top plate of the stove, where a big percentage of the heat radiates from, the cool air is actually cooling down the stove, lending credence to Spidey being able to lay his hand on a stove full of coals.

Bits and pieces, but they're all starting to fit together in this puzzle.

Just throwing this out FWIW - the tall stack probably has a lot more to do with this than the basement install. I'd guess it's operate similarly if installed on the main floor in the same flue. I have a short chimney - 13 1/2' from the pipe exit about 2' below ground level to the top of the clay tile liner - and a basement install works well for me. Draft is almost never a problem for me - I get flow up the chimney even when it's cold and the flue pipe isn't connected, but without measuring tools, I don't think it's excessive.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> *L.O.L.*
> I'm lovin' the drawing *Steve*, but ya' forgot the air wash/primary, so I added it in red.
> 
> 
> ...


If I stop mine down for a long burn the door glass will cloud up too, but I don't get the coaling.

I think the drawing is a good illustration, but it's still a small firebox and I don't believe you can have that much airflow through the top half of it and get the bottom so starved for oxygen it coals. 

I think the missing ingredient is burying the bottom logs in ash from a fast burning fire up top due to uncontrolled secondary air.

BTW - I like having an on-topic group discussion and figuring out real problems.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> I think the missing ingredient is burying the bottom logs in ash from a fast burning fire up top due to uncontrolled secondary air.



I don't see enough ash to strangle the coals under it being a possibility, unless you're burning something like slabwood from a mill that's mostly bark. From what I've seen of Spidey's wood piles, I don't think that's the case. I can burn down a full load of red oak in my 3 1/2 cf firebox and only have enough ashes left to fill a small coffee can - far from enough to smother a fire. Lack of oxygen is much more likely.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

*slowp*,
Look at the drawings... the coals are not getting air (oxygen), or at least very little air.
Without air they cannot burn and heat, they just smolder and eventually die.
It's sort'a like one of those "air doors" (if you've ever walked through one?)... a rapidly moving wall of air keeps the cold air outside, and the warm air inside.
In my firebox, during extreme draft conditions, a wall of turbulent air sets up above the coal bed, causing the coals to just recirculate the already oxygen depleted air in the lower firebox back onto themselves... no oxygen, no heat, and they eventually smother completely. That turbulent and rapidly exchanging air in the top of the box steals any remaining heat from the stove, carrying it out the flue. Unless I keep adding wood to keep the secondary burning... I'm pretty much just heating the out-of-doors during extreme cold weather. Adding wood continues to build the coal bed, until there ain't hardly room for wood... so then I shovel out all that potential heat to make room (so I'm wasting wood on a grand scale). For some reason that still doesn't make 100% sense, I can't modify the intake or the exhaust to get proper balance during extreme cold (draft). If I get the draft/intake/exhaust pulled down enough to shut off the "air door" effect... basically, I've shut the stove off. The stove, or more correctly, the combination of the stove design and my draft situation will not allow a "happy medium"... it simply doesn't work.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> I don't see enough ash to strangle the coals under it being a possibility, unless you're burning something like slabwood from a mill that's mostly bark. From what I've seen of Spidey's wood piles, I don't think that's the case. I can burn down a full load of red oak in my 3 1/2 cf firebox and only have enough ashes left to fill a small coffee can - far from enough to smother a fire. Lack of oxygen is much more likely.


That's a valid point, but how do you get hot coals to go out when there is high velocity air circulating a couple of inches over top of it? Those hot coals will create a lot of rising air and local circulation all on their own, mixing fresh air back down.

What makes the bed of hot exposed coals go out? The air that rises from them _must _be replaced by other air in the box, and that air contains oxygen from an abundant supply of fresh air moving through.

Is there some combustion condition here that causes more ash? Are the people with excessive coaling problems finding a lot of ash too?


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Read my "air door" theory above... wad'ya think?

I gotta' believe there most likely is a "sweet spot" where the stove will run correctly, but it's so darn narrow you can't keep it there for longer than a few short minutes.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *Is there some combustion condition here that causes more ash? Are the people with excessive coaling problems finding a lot of ash too?*



That's an interesting question... and I'll tell you why.
During warmer weather and reduced draft, like the last few days, the firebox work pretty darn good, and when I clean the ash out it's super fine, light weight and whitish in color.
But during cold weather and increased draft (even when I purposely fiddle with the coal bed every half hour to get it to burn down) the ash is course, heavy and dark grey-to-almost-black in color (and full of un-burnt, small charred pieces of coal).
Not really sure what that tells us though... other than lack of enough oxygen.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

whitespider said:


> *slowp*,
> look at the drawings... The coals are not getting air (oxygen), or at least very little air.
> Without air they cannot burn and heat, they just smolder and eventually die.
> It's sort'a like one of those "air doors" (if you've ever walked through one?)... A rapidly moving wall of air keeps the cold air outside, and the warm air inside.
> In my firebox, during extreme draft conditions, a wall of turbulent air sets up above the coal bed, causing the coals to just recirculate the already oxygen depleted air in the lower firebox back onto themselves... No oxygen, no heat, and they eventually smother completely. That turbulent and rapidly exchanging air in the top of the box steals any remaining heat from the stove, carrying it out the flue. Unless i keep adding wood to keep the secondary burning... I'm pretty much just heating the out-of-doors during extreme cold weather. Adding wood continues to build the coal bed, until there ain't hardly room for wood... So then i shovel out all that potential heat to make room (so i'm wasting wood on a grand scale). For some reason that still doesn't make 100% sense, i can't modify the intake or the *exhaust to get proper balance during extreme cold* (draft). If i get the draft/intake/exhaust pulled down enough to shut off the "air door" effect... Basically, i've shut the stove off. The stove, or more correctly, the combination of the *stove design and my draft situation will not allow a "happy medium"*... It simply doesn't work.


*BDR*


woodheatwarrior said:


> that's a valid point, but how do you get hot coals to go out when there is *high velocity air* *circulating a couple* *of inches over top of it*? Those hot coals will create a lot of rising air and local circulation all on their own, mixing fresh air back down.
> 
> 
> what makes the bed of hot exposed coals go out? The air that rises from them _must _be replaced by other air in the box, and that air contains oxygen from an abundant supply of fresh air moving through.
> ...



*Slow it down with BDR*



By the way spidey, I just looked up the Daka furnace manual, page 7, and I quote

"Connecting Daka furnace to chimney

1. A barometric regulator should be installed in smoke pipe at least 18" from furnace, to permit adjustment of chimney draft to a maximum of .06" water column draft..."

...so now what?


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Del_ said:


> *My Jotul 600 has the air wash input but also has a main air input in the center front of the box right inside of the door at grate level. This air shoots directly into the firebox at grate level...*



Ain't no grate in mine...
But there is air that comes in just below the door... it's a tiny unregulated amount called "Boost Air" by PE, supposedly to aid in starting a fire. (Look back through this thread, it's already been discussed). It will keep the coals closest to the door live, but they need to be within a couple inches of the air inlets... once those burn down it's all over but the crying.

Thinking about that... if my theoretical air door is present, the air coming in the "boost" has very little draft to pull more in.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

Del_ said:


> I'm surprised Spider's stove has no main air input other than the air wash system. My Jotul 600 has the air wash input but also has a main air input in the center front of the box right inside of the door at grate level. This air shoots directly into the firebox at grate level (the grate is in the floor of the firebox and above the ash pan) and can be seen to burn holes in wood that it hits or burn away coals if coals are what is there. Raking coals to the front of the firebox near the glass door burns them away quickly. Of course I'm talking hardwood because the pine and poplar I've been burning this year doesn't make many if any long term coals.


My stove does not have an air intake there. All the primary air comes in as doorwash, but the effect is the same - it blows right in at the front edge. No grate either.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> That's an interesting question... and I'll tell you why.
> During warmer weather and reduced draft, like the last few days, the firebox work pretty darn good, and when I clean the ash out it's super fine, light weight and whitish in color.
> But during cold weather and increased draft (even when I purposely fiddle with the coal bed every half hour to get it to burn down) the ash is course, heavy and dark grey-to-almost-black in color (and full of un-burnt, small charred pieces of coal).
> Not really sure what that tells us though... other than lack of enough oxygen.


Would burning in a high velocity air flow do that?


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

brenndatomu said:


> *By the way spidey, I just looked up the Daka furnace manual, page 7, and I quote
> 1. A barometric regulator should be installed in smoke pipe...*



Yeah, I know it says that... but on page 2 it says...
"_4. A barometric regulator/damper *may* be used in the chimney connector..._"

If I need one... then I need one... but I'll try it with a flue damper first.

addendum; See, the way I read page 7, after reading page 2...
"_1. A barometric regulator should be installed in smoke pipe at least 18" from furnace..._"
... is to mean, *if* a barometric regulator is used, it *should* be installed 18-inches up the pipe.
But maybe that's just wishful reading...


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> *Would burning in a high velocity air flow do that?*



I have no idea!


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah, I know it says that... but on page 2 it says...
> "_4. A barometric regulator/damper *may* be used in the chimney connector..._"
> 
> If I need one... then I need one... but I'll try it with a flue damper first.
> ...



Ahh, well in light of page 2 you *may* be right 

I hate when a manual gives you several different specs on the same subject! I have seen in other furnace manuals where they can't even seem to make up their mind on the draft setting that they want you to use!


----------



## laynes69 (Mar 1, 2013)

Spider, I found a thread recently with a man with the same stove as yours. He installed a smart stove electronic controller. Before he calibrated the controls, his stove would reduce a full load to ash within 4 hours, flue temps hitting over 1000 internal. After calibrating he said his stove runs normal or a little better. He loads it and within 4 hours it's coals then 4 hours later he reloads. No excessive coaling, and plenty of heat for the home. I don't know about his setup, but if he can reduce a load to ash within 4 hours there's a very strong draft. 

There's many threads with those with excessive coaling, and lack of heat output comes along with most. On a mild day, your stove/furnace did just fine. It was able to burn down the load and meet heating demand. Once it would get cold, that coal bed was no longer enough to keep things warm. If you can't wait for the coals to burn down, your forced to add more wood which compounds the problem.

I don't know if you tested the draft with a manometer. I thought our old chimney 7x11 32' had excessive draft, but when tested the draft was extremely weak, once hot though it was too strong. The liner solved this problem with a constant strong stable draft. 

Unless your stove had a defect, the other poster had no issues burning down a coal bed. That leads me to believe the draft may not be what you think. Its not your wood, but probably a combo of draft and the home. We had very poor performance, even with our 32' chimney before lining with a 5.5' stainless liner. The old furnace on the other hand had no issues with the old chimney


----------



## stihly dan (Mar 1, 2013)

Spidey, try the bdr on the daka first. you won't regret it. It will help in 2 ways, constant even draft for warm or cold days. windy or no wind. also taking some basement air cooling the chimney SOME which also helps keep the draft down. Its not like the bdr is wide open sucking air. You probably used more extra combustion air on your stove than the bdr would have let up the chimney. So loss of basement air would be a wash.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> Spidey, try the bdr on the daka first. you won't regret it. It will help in 2 ways, constant even draft for warm or cold days. windy or no wind. also taking some basement air cooling the chimney SOME which also helps keep the draft down. *Its not like the bdr is wide open sucking air.* You probably used more extra combustion air on your stove than the bdr would have let up the chimney. So loss of basement air would be a wash.



This was true on my old setup using a external SS double walled 6" chimney. Not so with the setup I have now. (8" insulated SS liner in my brick chimney) During a real cold spell here recently, I noticed the BDR layed out wide open, and the draft was still -.04" WC! (as I said earlier, it usually runs -.02" to -.03") Don't think there wasn't some airflow happening _there_! You could actually feel pretty good breeze between the make-up air pipe and the BDR opening!

But I gotta agree with Dan there spidey, I think if you give a BDR an honest open minded try, you'll like it. Or at least do like layne69 said, get a manometer and run it on your stack for a while, you may be surprised what you'll find, but at least then you'll KNOW exactly what you are dealing with, with numbers to prove it.
Heck, you are some kinda tech, right? I'd think you'd jump at the chance to play with a new test instrument! I know I did, I mean it was only $20 delivered to my door. (fleabay)


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

laynes69 said:


> *On a mild day, your stove/furnace did just fine. It was able to burn down the load and meet heating demand. Once it would get cold, that coal bed was no longer enough to keep things warm. If you can't wait for the coals to burn down, your forced to add more wood which compounds the problem.
> That leads me to believe the draft may not be what you think.*



Ohhhhh please, can we not go back there... please take the time to read every single post in this entire thread.
It's not as simple as less heat than needed to heat the home. If you had read all the posts you would understand that, and never posted the above.
When the stove is several inches deep in coals, _*I can lay my hand on the bare steel of the stove!*_
The problem is not lower that required heat output, _*the problem is absolutely no heat output at all! None! NaDa! Zip! Zelch! Zero!*_
THE PROBLEM AIN'T POOR DRAFT!!! And that's a fact!


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

brenndatomu said:


> *...at least do like layne69 said, get a manometer and run it on your stack for a while, you may be surprised what you'll find, but at least then you'll KNOW exactly what you are dealing with, with numbers to prove it.*



"Prove it" to who? Myself? Obviously I'm not the one needing the convincing.
But there's something I've already stated several times now in this thread...

Guys, the time for experiments is past. The cold weather is gone for another year... THERE AIN'T ANYTHING TO TEST NOW!
With milder weather, my draft is now reduced to a manageable level.
Yes, I can feel and hear the difference... yes, it is reduced significantly... yes, it don't suck the door shut with a slam anymore... yes, it don't create that whistle and howl in the firebox with the door open anymore.
The decision is already made and I ain't willing take the chance some new experiment won't work when January rolls back around... I'm pulling it out and installing the DAKA furnace.
I'm no longer looking for solutions to the current set-up... we're just kickin' the can around.


----------



## slowp (Mar 1, 2013)

Del_ said:


> "The Primary Burn zone is initiated from the coal bed. It is the most important burn zone, ensuring that air flows into the heart of the fire."
> 
> The primary burn zone in my Jotol F600 is in exactly the same place as show in the Quadra-fire video
> 
> ...



That's my stove. I have learned NOT to block that front air intake when putting wood in too. It is a good woodstove for my Warshington Bungalow.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

You are absolutely correct spidey, it's your party, your opinion is the only one that matters (well, you n the Mrs) when it comes to heating your house. I realize you have made your decision and are no longer looking for solutions, some of my posts are more comment on what others have said here than for you.
Now then, I have spent most of my adult life doing diagnostic/troubleshooting type work, so something like what you have been dealing with here has my full attention, just the way my brain works. If it were my stove, and it's not, I would want to know, just for my own information (knowledge is power) the exact draft #, if I'm replacing the stove or not, just how I'm wired.
I can tell from reading your posts for a year or so now, (which I generally enjoy) you ain't no dummy and I agree with your conclusion about your stove. If it is as windy out there as you say, there is no way you can not have high, and probably erratic draft with a 40' chimney. 
I know you are very experienced at controlling that draft with a key damper and I'm sure it will work on the Daka. But for myself that's kinda like airing up a tire by eye, yeah you can get it within 5-10 PSI, but a gauge will help you nail it dead on optimum pressure for best life and performance. My curious mind would want the gauge (manometer) and an automatic pressure regulator (BDR) for the best performance my stove can give, especially in a tough draft environment like yours.

And for anyone who is interested, a little side note, a couple things I have learned about BDRs over the past year or two that most people probably don't understand.
1. They suck the heat out of your home. Not with an outside air make-up source.
2. They cool off your chimney too much so you lose draft and/or make creosote. If the chimney cools off too much, your draft drops and the BDR door closes maintaining the draft. Also, from what I have read, the reason they don't seem to creosote the chimney up as bad as most people think is, because of all the fresh air mixing in dilutes the smoke. Kinda like the way the auto manufacturers in the 70s and 80s used to inject air in the exhaust to pass the emissions test, they diluted it. I dunno, but I do know my flue pipe after the BDR is pretty cool, but I have great draft and the chimney has some soot, but very little cresote.

Sorry spidey, not trying to derail your thread, just, like you said, kickin the can around. :msp_thumbup: Carry on!


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Hey, for you guys advocating the baro damper I want you to think about this.
I already have two... sort'a.

The chimney is shared with two gas appliances, a furnace and a water heater. Gas appliances use a hooded exhaust... sort'a like an exhaust hood over a kitchen stove. Both are always wide open and sucking air. The 3-inch water heater pipe enters the chimney a few inches below where the wood stove enters it...basically a wide open 3-inch round opening sucking air all the time. The wood "stovace" has 2-feet of vertical 6-inch pipe into an 8-inch tee... one end of the tee runs horizontally 2-feet over to the chimney (so I have one section of vertical 6-inch pipe, and one section of horizontal 8-inch pipe, joined by the 8-inch tee). The other end of the tee has the 4-inch furnace pipe entering it... basically a wide open 4-inch round opening sucking air all the time.

Now before anyone starts pointing at that as the problem, go back and read the posts in this thread... I blocked off the gas appliance openings on two different 30-36 hour tests, and it didn't help one single bit. There was absolutely no noticeable difference at all... in fact, it might have been worse, but how would you know for sure?







Now I'm not claiming a baro won't work... ain't no way to know for sure without a test.
And like I said, the time for testing is past.

Just something I wanted y'all to think about when recommending the barometric damper.
I'm already bleeding a lot of draft from the wood stove... and it's still excessive in arctic temps.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

brenndatomu said:


> *2. They cool of your chimney too much so you lose draft and/or make creosote. If the chimney cools off too much, your draft drops and the BDR door closes maintaining the draft. ...all the fresh air mixing in dilutes the smoke. ...after the BDR is pretty cool, but I have great draft and the chimney has some soot, but very little cresote.*



Heck, I'm believing ya'...
My set-up has two always-open openings and I've never had any creosote problem... just a fine coating of soot that will wipe right off with your finger. I've actually thought that the fresh air is what must be keeping it so clean... but had (or have) no way to verify it.


----------



## stihly dan (Mar 1, 2013)

Spidey, I meant for the new daka, I fully understand the wood stove is over. I was just recommending it for the daka, so that there would be an exact even set draft thru it. May make it easier to run, or run better. Also not making a statement, you would know better. But when your running an appliance isn't the draft focused on that particular appliance, path of least resistance. Rather than pulling thru all appliances. I don't think either way would be wrong, but for $20 why not? Just my 2 cent's. You know I'm you side with this buddy.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

I almost forgot...
At one time the chimney had a fourth appliance connected to it, a wood-fired cook stove in the kitchen.
There was never any weak draft problems of any sort and Ive never cleaned the chimney in... well, the wife tells me it will be 21 years in August since we moved in. I inspect it every year... nothing but a fine layer of soot. I open the clean-out next to the floor in the basement every year... usually find about a cup or so of fine soot laying there. And guess what? I don't even need to clean that out... I just stir it up a little and it gets sucked out the chimney.

Heck, maybe it stays so clean because there's a coating of oil on it... when we first came here the old monster coal furnace had been converted to an oil furnace. That had to be the most inefficient thing I've ever used... it sucked up fuel like a pullin' tractor in the money round.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

*stihly dan*,
$20 for a baro damper? Tell me where. The ones I see are normally around $100... but for $20 I'd put one in inventory just in case!


----------



## stihly dan (Mar 1, 2013)

I picked one up at lowes before I realized one came with the kuuma.

I have a 6 in one I could send ya for free.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 1, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> I picked one up at lowes before I realized one came with the kuuma.
> 
> I have a 6 in one I could send ya for free.



Nice Dan. Good guy BDR rep incoming!

I was just gonna say someone has a new Fields 6" on fleabay right now for $11.50


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Well that's darn nice of ya' to offer me the free baro... but I'm not gonna' put one on the current stove anyway.
I'll shop around and research it a bit for the DAKA... but if they can be had for that little it would cost darn near as much to ship it as I should be able to buy it. Hang on to yours for now, maybe someone local can use it... but don't think I'm unappreciative, I just feel like I'd be taking advantage on something like that.


----------



## Oxford (Mar 1, 2013)

If the new stove really calls out 0.06 iwc draft as posted, better start thinking now, because assuming a 40' chimney height, 0F outdoor temperature and a 450F stack, the natural draft calculates as .32 iwc, or about five times max. Which also explains your "coaling" issue. They're not coals, they're charcoal, made by incomplete combustion. Whether that incomplete combustion is due to a layer of ash, lack of oxygen, or, my bet, the simple physics that make a match blow out on a windy day, no matter. Also, I would strongly consider a fresh air makeup isolated as much as possible from the rest of the home, since that draft will pull 700+ cfm of air through a 6" opening. That's equivalent to 2 tons of air conditioning at 55 F outdoor air and substantially more at lower temperatures.

I would put a manometer on that stack now, so that I could plan for my next install. I suspect you won't, because your giant pulsating brain doesn't require any actual data, just good ol common sense. Next winter, when the new stove you got from a member here isn't working the way you want, I hope that same common sense prevents you from running your mouth about that stove and by extension, that member.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Wow *Oxford*,
Even though that post was slingin' mean at me... I sure liked it.
Your numbers tend to put it all in perspective... even my "_giant pulsating brain_" hadn't gotten around to doing the math :msp_thumbup:


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 1, 2013)

Ummm... One more thing *Oxford* (serious question),
The next time someone tries to tell me i have a weak draft problem, do I have your permission to use your numbers in rebuttal? It sure would be a lot more handy and convincing than what have been doing.

Why didn't I think of running the numbers?


----------



## stihly dan (Mar 1, 2013)

Just went down to give the furnace it's good night dinner. As I was pulling the ashes down the grate, I realized I am glad it does not have glass. I thought that was the one thing I wish it had. But if it did it would most likely have had an air wash system. Instead of the primary air blowing right along the floor burning all the coals. Luckily kuuma cares more for performance than luxuries. Or I may have had the same problem as the stove.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Mar 2, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> Just went down to give the furnace it's good night dinner. As I was pulling the ashes down the grate, I realized I am glad it does not have glass. I thought that was the one thing I wish it had. But if it did it would most likely have had an air wash system. Instead of the primary air blowing right along the floor burning all the coals. Luckily kuuma cares more for performance than luxuries. Or I may have had the same problem as the stove.



I'm a glass convert - call me a fire watcher or what you want, but it's neat to see how things are going whenever you want. Between posts today in this thread, I actually spent some quality time on the floor with the dog just watching the secondaries do their thing. Best thing on "fire TV" short of a good brushpile at full burn. Watching fire helps clear the mind.

Anywho...the primary/airwash air in my unit does a good job of keeping the glass clean, and I beleive (judging by the burn pattern when it's winding down) that it's responsible for burning down much of the coals. Whether it's efficient or not is up to debate by people with more expertise than me.

This thread had me thinkin tonight at work - I think I have an idea that would solve Spidey and others' coaling problems. It'd need to be designed into the stove though, or require cutting and welding on an existing stove. Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to build a half scale stove with my idea built in just to see if it will work. Side benefit: Wood heat for the ice shack. Not gonna say much more, as IF (and IF is the biggest two letter word out there, I know) it didn't adversely affect emissions performance, it might have commercial value.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

I’ve sort’a learned-to-like the glass door thing also. Not so much that I like to sit and watch the fire (although I have done that), but it sure is handy for a quick check of the fire. Just before I bought the used DAKA I was looking at the Englander furnace. They have a glass door and air wash, but also have a grate system and a separate spin draft located under it… I was thinking maybe that would be the “best of both worlds” type of thing. I’m not so sure it’s fair to say stove makers using glass doors and air wash systems care more about luxuries than performance… keep in mind that furnaces, such as Kuuma, are legally exempt from EPA certification(even if they claim to pass EPA tests).

One reason (as I see it anyway) for the glass, is to allow lots of radiant heat to escape from the firebox. Out of necessity, the new EPA stoves try to keep firebox temps high, which improves combustion efficiency, which helps to pass the tests. Those high temps require some amount of protection of the steel, so most are lined with refractory materials (i.e. firebrick)… which not only protects the integrity of the steel, it aids in keeping combustion temps high. But refractory brick is an insulator of sorts, it will slow the _rate_ of heat transfer to the steel, and therefore from the steel to the space and air around it… the glass door makes up for this _rate_ loss in spades when the stove is used as a space heater (as it is intended to be used). Radiant heat is what makes the “body” feel warm, air conduction/convection heat not so much. Think about stepping out of a lake after a swim on a hot summer day… even when its 90[sup]o[/sup], if it’s cloudy any breeze will feel cool to the body, but if the sun is shining (radiant heat) it will near instantly feel hot to the body, and will overpower the “cooling” effect of most any “normal” breeze.

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._”

Well... that pretty much sums it up… don’t ya’ think?


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

Just to keep on the “informational” theme of this thread…
This morning the temps (and my draft) are sort’a in the intermediate stage… 10[sup]o[/sup] but no wind to speak of. The “stovace” is running almost exactly like the article I linked to describes. When I got up at 4:00 it was a bit cool in here (67[sup]o[/sup]) so I filled the box with oak… now, just 2½ hours later the oak is nearly consumed (short burn time), and although there is a coal bed it ain’t really what I’d call excessive and is burning and heating to some degree (stove steel way to hot to touch). Still, probably an hour or so from now I’ll need to reload (less than a 4-hour burn time)… but if it was a bit colder, or the wind was blowing, I’d have a monster bed of (almost) non-burning coals and be needing to reload now (and the stove steel would be cool enough to sit on).

Just some FYI.

Oh... and if it stayed at 10[sup]o[/sup] all day, the deep, none-burning coal bed would eventually manifest itself. It's just in extreme cold or wind, that it appears on the first load, or would have already been present when I got up this morning. If it was around 0[sup]o[/sup] and blowing, I would have needed to shovel out the coals (charcoal) to make room for the daily burning.


----------



## stihl sawing (Mar 2, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> Just to keep on the “informational” theme of this thread…
> This morning the temps (and my draft) are sort’a in the intermediate stage… 10[sup]o[/sup] but no wind to speak of. The “stovace” is running almost exactly like the article I linked to describes. When I got up at 4:00 it was a bit cool in here (67[sup]o[/sup]) so I filled the box with oak… now, just 2½ hours later the oak is nearly consumed (short burn time), and although there is a coal bed it ain’t really what I’d call excessive and is burning and heating to some degree (stove steel way to hot to touch). Still, probably an hour or so from now I’ll need to reload (less than a 4-hour burn time)… but if it was a bit colder, or the wind was blowing, I’d have a monster bed of (almost) non-burning coals and be needing to reload now (and the stove steel would be cool enough to sit on).
> 
> Just some FYI.


Wow, only three to four hours. You do have something wrong there. I wouldn't think a bad setup would cause it to burn that fast unless the air vents are wide open. Mine will do that but you can't run them open cause the stove will overheat. Now the oak i'm burning now is pretty old so it's burning fast but not like yours. Hope you get it figured out, that would aggravating getting up every three hours to fill a stove. Almost make you want to turn the thermostate on the wall up if you have other heat.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

OK… now we’re at the 3-hour mark and it begins.
I could tell it had stopped heating by the air coming from the heat vents. Went down and laid my hand on the bare steel, it was hot, but not so hot I couldn’t leave my hand there... more like real warm. Pretty decent size coal bed… enough to fill a 3-gallon bucket anyway. I raked the coals into a pile right in front of the door (right in front of the “boost” air holes) and opened the draft control and flue damper completely. That will gain me around 20 minutes to maybe a half hour of some moderate heat, and burn down the coals some. I’ll be reloading at 7:30 I’m sure… just 3½ hours from start-up… and the coal bed will start to accumulate until the temps outside increase. It’s really weird, at about 25[sup]o[/sup] or so (depending on wind) the coal bed will magically make the stove steel screamin’ hot again, and just burn up. But if it stays cold… they’ll just stall-out and eventually die.

Now it’s almost become a funny joke… makes me laugh (I’m not sure what I’m laughing at though).
When it's down-right arctic out, I'd have already reloaded well over an hour ago.


----------



## Oxford (Mar 2, 2013)

It's not weird at all. Until the difference in temperatures between your stack and the outdoor temperature comes correct, the draft is not in a range that allows your stove to properly circulate combustion air, flammable gasses, and combustion products and approach ideal combustion. A manometer on the stack would tell you that.

You keep saying you know it's all on you, and then you post things that imply it's really still the stove. You're welcome to use the numbers I posted earlier, but remember that they show that while you don't have a weak draft problem, you pretty clearly have an overdraft, which is also, say it with me, a draft problem. I get that you don't want to resolve it, that you instead plan to overturn the laws of physics on appeal, but resolving your draft issue would make your life easier IMO.

I know you plan on spending no time on this, but if you put a tee in the stack off your stove with the bullhead open to your basement and installed the flue damper in the bullhead, you could play with that damper and watch your stove come to life, I think. If I were you, I would install such a tee and cap it if nothing else when you install your next stove. You might be glad you did when it came time to install the barometric damper.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 2, 2013)

Regarding having glass for viewing, it drives me nuts not being able to check the fire without opening the door! When I started heating with wood I used a stove that had a small rotating air control that you could peek through to see the fire. Then, when I installed the Big Jack, nothing. So I stole a design from one of our boilers at work, a small glass viewing port. Cheap, easy, effective. Just a 2.5" long 1-1/2" pipe nipple, a 1-1/2" pipe coupler, a round piece of high temp glass cut to fit inside the pipe coupler, and a small piece of gasket material. I cut a hole in the center of the furnace door with a hole saw, welded the nipple in leaving a inch sticking out, cutting the excess off the inside. Then I threaded the coupler on the outside and carefully "dropped" the glass into the coupler so it seats against the end of the nipple. I made a "nut" to hold the glass in by cutting off 1/4"-3/8" of the previously removed inside threaded end of the pipe nipple, cut some notches in it so a screw driver can be used to install/remove it. That gets threaded down into the coupler against the glass. I did isolate the glass from touching any metal by cutting some thin "washers" from the gasket material, 1 on each side of the glass. Don't overtighten the nut (buy spare glass untill you know what overtighten means ) Once it was assembled, I cut the excess length from outside end of the pipe coupler, so it was flush with the "nut"

I thought the glass would stay clean because it was back in a dead air space. Nope. :bang: Time to make an airwash system. I drilled 8 .125" (or 1/8") holes in the pipe coupler so that they are right at the inside edge of the glass.
I did the same on my current Yukon too, it works well. If I stack wood right up against the inside of the port, it will still smoke up the glass a _little bit_, but it takes 2 minutes to pull the glass out, clean and re-install. I think I have had to clean it twice this winter. 
Anyways, it's a good compromise between a glass and a solid steel door. All due paying AS members are welcome to steal this idea...


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

7:35 AM – stove steel has turned cold – 4, maybe 5 inches of coals in the stove – reloaded.

Ya’ know what’s really sick? It’s supposed to get up over 30[sup]o[/sup] today… at some point after lunch that coal bed will magically come alive and start burning , the stove will get hot enough there won’t be any way possible to put your hand on the steel, and we’ll be opening the doors to let the heat _out!_ But on the bright side… I won’t be shoveling it out and throwing it away like I was in January and February :msp_biggrin:


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

I’m hearing everything you’re saying *Oxford*.
But I’m not trying to “imply” anything anymore… really, I’m not.

And yes, an overdraft is a "draft problem"... I agree 100%!
That's exactly what this whole thread was supposed to be about.

(I'm startin' to really like this guy)


----------



## laynes69 (Mar 2, 2013)

While I see the glass door as a luxury, its a big part of the design and performance of the furnace. I don't have any returns nor supply ducts in our basement. In the dead of winter, our basement stays in the low to mid 60's. Now i've been in homes where they don't heat their basement, and it stays in the 60's, but their home isn't a mid 19th century home with large boulder and mortar foundation that leaks like a seive. Its nice to be able to heat the basement, and allow the rest of the heat produced from the furnace to heat the 2 floors above.

I wasn't trying to bust your chops spider, its what you said on your last post. We heated with a old wood furnace that was a simple firebox, shaker grates and baffle. The thing was extremely easy to use, put out tons of heat and was forgiving of the chimney. When we installed our new furnace, which the old one was in this house for over 20 years, it was an experience. Less heat, cooler home, poor performance all around. I realized the furnace needed a liner especially after testing with a manometer over the season. Our draft requirements were .04-.06", with our old setup the draft would go from .02" on a firebox of coals to almost .20" on a high fire. Once that load of wood burned down (Quickly, High Draft), there wasn't enough heat in the coal bed to sustain draft. Even opening the draft all the way didn't help, at that point it would take forever to burn down coals. There wasn't enough draft to keep those coals hot, which heat output was less than par. I kept telling myself, its the furnace because the old furnace did just fine and there was more than enough draft. Well the old furnace put a ton of heat up the flue, which helped the large oversize chimney to maintain draft, our Caddy on the otherhand had flue temps so low, that they were exiting the chimney at under a hundred degrees. Many mornings, we woke to dead black coals in the rear of our firebox.

When we lined the chimney, things changed. Our draft went from .01-.02" on a coal bed to .05"(or wherever we set it), as well as high fire where it was set. This allowed the furnace to burn properly, heat output increased, burn times increased, and the accumulating coal bed dissapeared. The furnace ran cleaner, and the condensation that was produced before in the chimney dissapeared. I was suprised, and all these posts I had read about lining were true.
We started burning wood that was properly seasoned, not what would burn in the old furnace. The manufacturer put all the information in their manual for a reason. That of having a specific draft requirement as well a properly sized flue.

Like I say, I wasn't trying to bust your chops. These stoves and even our furnace need specific requirements to run properly. I'm 100% sure you will be happy with your Daka. It will be less forgiving on your setup, with its simple design. That and it has everything you want or need. It sounds as though you have a decent heating load, and the Daka should take care of that with no problems.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

*Oxford*,
Keep in mind that many of us, especially me, never considered that an overdraft could cause many of the symptoms I was experiencing. A fast, out of control fire, yes… but the building up of coals that will not heat or burn down, no friggin’ way. Some of us (old guys) grew up around, and spent years, burning in those steel boxes with spin drafts and flue dampers… and the people we looked at as being the “old guys” taught us that more draft was always “more-better.” Heck, just look at some of the posts in this thread by, for example, *WoodHeatWarrior*; I’m not so sure he’s yet 100% convinced that an overdraft could possibly be the curprit. Maybe I just don’t remember, but I don’t think one single person, in multiple threads, over several weeks, ever even mentioned an “overdraft” (but if somebody did, please speak up and say “I told ya’ so”). Heck, it goes against near everything I “thought” I knew about wood-fired appliances.

Your last couple post have been very informative, but ya’ don’t need to “sling mean” at me man… ya’ just gotta’ give me a little time to wrap my brain around it. This is sort’a like telling me I’ve been putting my shoes on backwards for 55 years. I’m getting’ it… I’m listening… you’ve got my attention man.


----------



## haveawoody (Mar 2, 2013)

Whitespider,

This post got me interested in the problem.
When it's mild out your stove works like a champ but when it's cold like a dog.
Burning lots of wood and at record speed.

Stack temp IMO.
Got to be the pipe not heating well enough to allow correct combustion in the stove.
Sounds like it's puttng lots of energy into trying to heat the stack and little heat remaining inside. 

Might be time for a dedicated chimney for the epa.
Very little waste energy from an epa and low stack temps at the best of times with them, heavy heat losses on the pipe can make for a poor working epa.

Im not familiar with your setup but i suspect robbing peter to pay paul somewhere on the system and the epa is showing it in burn quality.






Whitespider said:


> 7:35 AM – stove steel has turned cold – 4, maybe 5 inches of coals in the stove – reloaded.
> 
> Ya’ know what’s really sick? It’s supposed to get up over 30[sup]o[/sup] today… at some point after lunch that coal bed will magically come alive and start burning , the stove will get hot enough there won’t be any way possible to put your hand on the steel, and we’ll be opening the doors to let the heat _out!_ But on the bright side… I won’t be shoveling it out and throwing it away like I was in January and February :msp_biggrin:


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 2, 2013)

HA! I see what you did on your sig line there spidey. 

I guess I can't point out any one specific instance where myself or any of the others pushing for a BDR have actually said, "spidey, you have HDS (high draft syndrome)" it was more implied. I know myself, I didn't have it figured out how, exactly, high or erratic draft was causing your problems (which recently you seem to have figured out) but I did _suspect_ it was the problem or at least contributing to the problem. I'm not too good at communicating exactly what I'm thinking sometimes. No "I told you so" from me, at least not unless you have problems with the Daka and haven't tried a BDR yet...:msp_wink:


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

Yeah, I thought the signature line thing would be fun *brenndatomu*... at least for a little while.

Unless I missed it, I don't remember anyone pushing a BDR before this thread (but I may have dismissed it).


----------



## stihly dan (Mar 2, 2013)

My question would be, why is there an overdraft? I know I had one with the correct size chimney. But in many places it is stated that, if you have a POOR draft look at the chimney. One of the biggest problems encountered with the new stoves is that they call for a 6 in flue, and the old stove had an 8 in or larger because thats what they needed. So when it comes to draft a larger chimney actually reduces draft. And Spidey yours is huge!! (I feel there will be a quote here) So in theory there should be less draft?


----------



## Oxford (Mar 2, 2013)

Fair enough, Whitespider, I'll try not to hurt your feelings, and that sig change is funny.

Not speaking to you specifically, but areas of circles often trip people up when thinking about flow through pipes, which is what a stovepipe is, after all. An 8" pipe has an area not quite twice that of a 6" pipe and four times that of a 4" pipe, which is why, for example, the flues on your other appliances aren't relieving you as much as you'd intuitively think. Your house must be fairly loose or you wouldn't be able to shut (or open, depending on swing) a door in the place.

Good luck.


----------



## Oxford (Mar 2, 2013)

Stihly,

There's only poor draft if there isn't enought difference in density between tha gasses at the bottom to overcome the pressure at the top. If the fire's hot enough, or the chimney effect is pulling enough warm air from the house, or the diffence between outdoor air temp and the indoor temp is large enough, the chimney will draft no matter how large it is.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

Oxford said:


> *Fair enough, Whitespider, I'll try not to hurt your feelings...
> Your house must be fairly loose or you wouldn't be able to shut (or open, depending on swing) a door in the place.*



LOL... don't worry about my feelings, it takes a lot more to pierce this thick old skin.

Yeah, the doors open/close easily enough and I know where most of the "make-up" air is entering the house. Just behind the "appliances" and chimney in the basement is the old coal storage room. It has a flip-up cast-iron door in the foundation where the coal was once dumped in; I use it to toss the wood in now. It don't seal worth sour owl crap; when you stand in the doorway to the storage room (that puts you between the coal door and chimney/appliances) you can feel the draft moving through it. I always figured it was better to let the air come in there, close to the chimney, than to seal it and cause a bunch (more?) cold air to enter the house somewhere in the living area upstairs. Besides, sealing it would block the easy, relatively clean way of putting wood in the house.

The basement stays warm enough all on it's own, rarely drops below 65[sup]o[/sup], and then only when outside temp get nasty... if you sit down there barefoot long enough your tootsies will get a bit cold though.


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

stihly dan said:


> And Spidey yours is huge!!



Thank you... thank you very much! :msp_w00t:


----------



## zogger (Mar 2, 2013)

I still dont see why you cant put a T (sideways so you have a straight up option)a with a damper on the first pipe from the stovace, use the damper as a valve, divert it to a series of elbows connected together like an S snake, (could be on two sides for that matter) then back into another T higher up, then back out. Cold days, divert it through the elbows, the curves act as a stack reducer, or so I have read here, every 90 elbow is the same as dropping 5 foot in height, or something like that..


----------



## Whitespider (Mar 2, 2013)

That might work *zogger*, might not... no way to know for sure until January soonest.
Sure seems like a lot of "extra"... something I wouldn't have been against trying two months ago.
The way it is, after all the irritation, I'm not willing to continue the experiment... but I'll support anyone who wants to take it form here (thinking - not sure how they'd duplicate conditions).

In any event , this thread is close to death, and we'll likely know little more.
I've learned a bunch, good or bad... and knowledge is never a bad thing... just too bad, as it always seems to be, the best lessons come the "hard way".


----------

