# Secondary Burn



## woodchuck357 (Dec 6, 2014)

If you are getting secondary burn and making a big bed of coals, you're starving your fire of oxygen.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 6, 2014)

Oh boy...


----------



## wahoowad (Dec 6, 2014)

not really


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 7, 2014)

Uuuhhhhh - say what?


----------



## flotek (Dec 7, 2014)

..... Hogwash !


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 7, 2014)

flotek said:


> ..... Hogwash !


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

Damn right‼ But what'a ya' ganna' do?? It's you're _idiotic stove design that is_ starving _the bottom of_ your fire of oxygen.
Have I mentioned I really, really, really, really hate my elitist stove‼?
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

I've had both kind of stoves and my new one uses half the wood and keeps our bigger house warmer.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

Magic??
*


----------



## GVS (Dec 7, 2014)

woodchuck357 said:


> If you are getting secondary burn and making a big bed of coals, you're starving your fire of oxygen.


I wouldn't go so far as to say the fire is starved for air but if draft air is allowed to pass over the bed of coals said coals will melt right down to ashes.Doesen't take but 30 or 40 minutes either.Been that way since man discovered fire and started building fires on the ground.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

So… more heat from *half* the wood??
Let’s figure there’s 7000 BTUs in a pound of wood…

Let’s say, in 12 hours, I burn 100 pounds of it in my (supposedly) 55% efficient smoke dragon…
7000 × 100 × .55 ÷ 12 = 32083 BTU’s per hour (average).

Now let’s say, in 12 hours, you burn *half* that much wood in your (supposedly) 85% efficient elitist stove…
7000 × 50 × .85 ÷ 12 = 24791 BTU’s per hour (average).

Heck, even if we say the smoke dragon is only 50% efficient and the elitist stove is 90% efficient… it still comes up short…
7000 × 100 × .50 ÷ 12 = 29167 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .90 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.

More likely the “real world” efficiency numbers are closer to 60% and 80%...
7000 × 100 × .60 ÷ 12 = 35000 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .80 ÷ 12 = 23333 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.

More heat from *half* the wood??
Must be magic.
I don't believe in magic, so I don't believe claims of more heat from *half* the wood... actually I call BS‼

Now if the claim was the same amount of heat from 20% or 25% less wood I might buy that... maybe.
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert. I just know that the difference between then and now is significant in my situation both in terms of heat and quantity of wood burned. Is it possible that the secondary burn chamber in my stove creates more BTU's? My stove literally glows red inside and the flames create a spiral motion that is incredible. There are blue and white flames shooting down from the top with orange flames shooting up from the wood. I can't use a standard kettle for a steamer because it boils so hard that it throws water all over. My brother has a stove that has a secondary with tubes and it doesn't produce nearly the heat. Not all "elitist" stoves are created equal. That being said, not all "old stoves" are created equal either and it's very possible that my old stove was not a good performer. I can only draw on my own experiences.


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Magic??
> *


I'm just waiting for spider to blow a gasket. ...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

*More heat* from ⅓ the wood?? 
Even Houdini couldn’t pull that one off‼ 

And 99.94% fewer emissions?? 
What?? You think you're a comedian Del_ ?? (I ain't laughin' at your words... I'm laughin' at you.)

By-the-way... I ain't tryin' to save the whales, I'm tryin' to heat my home.
"Emissions" ain't even a consideration... they ain't even on the list... I flat don't care sour owl crap about them.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> _*I'm just waiting for spider to blow a gasket.*_


Likely be a long wait for ya'... I ain't the emotional type.
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

Yeah you don't come across as being emotional at all!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> _*Is it possible that the secondary burn chamber in my stove creates more BTU's? ... Not all "elitist" stoves are created equal.
> That being said, not all "old stoves" are created equal either and it's very possible that my old stove was not a good performer.*_


OK... maybe... but *more* heat from *half* the wood is still way out there in left field.
Let's say your elitist stove is exceptionally good, and your old smoke dragon was exceptionally bad... "real world" numbers of 45% and 90%.
7000 × 100 × .45 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .90 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.

Ya' still ain't gettin' *more* heat‼



Del_ said:


> _*I don't buy into the term "elitist stoves".*_


You don't have to... it ain't about you Del_, get over it.
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

I'm most definitely getting more heat with less wood. I think there are more factors at play than your simple math. IMHO. Like I said, my new stove cranks out heat far more than my previous stove. Another added benefit that doesn't go unnoticed is that my wife wears significantly less clothing in the house now than before and she's a very modest woman!


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 7, 2014)

Btw, I agree that "half" the wood is an exaggerated statement. But I do burn significantly less than before with better results.


----------



## 7sleeper (Dec 7, 2014)

Efficiancy definately has a lot to do with it. If you have a blue flame or a red flame we are speaking about two totally different temperature spectrums. If you have the possibility to store the energy then you definately have some savings. Of course the whole setup has to fit together, beginning at the insulation of your home and ending at the stove. If the whole system works out then you will reduce your consumption substantially. And we should not forget your firewood should be dry = stored split and stacked for at least two years or else a large part of the energy is used to vaporize the water in your damp wood.

So yes there are considerable savings to be had, but it isn't the stove alone that will make it happen.

7


----------



## blades (Dec 7, 2014)

Put this way, more heat into dwelling than up the stack with a newer stove per volume of fuel, for the most part. Can't create what isn't there in the first place but you can use what there is more efficiently.


----------



## Ironworker (Dec 7, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> I'm most definitely getting more heat with less wood. I think there are more factors at play than your simple math. IMHO. Like I said, my new stove cranks out heat far more than my previous stove. Another added benefit that doesn't go unnoticed is that my wife wears significantly less clothing in the house now than before and she's a very modest woman!


You know the rule, pics or it didn't happen


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 7, 2014)

Ahh...spideys favorite subject...I think he has 2 user names and is actually the OP. 
I have both types of stoves, bottom line, they both work. The old school burners are less finicky about their diet and method of operation. The EPA style burner, with dry wood, IS more efficient and runs cleaner in my experience. Heck, I have made mods to my (smoke dragon) Yukon, which burns on grates, to be more like a EPA firebox (and made changes in my SOP as a result) and by doing so have cut wood consumption WAY down. I'd say 1/3 to 1/2-ish. Right now with our weather running 20s at night, 30s in the day I have been feeding it (1) small Maple split and (1) larger Oak split three times per day and have maintained a steady 70-71 in the house. FYI heating about 2000 sq ft, average insulation. Anyways, before the mods we would have froze feeding the Yukon this skimpy diet in this kind of weather. 
I know your experience with the EPA style box has been negative spidey, but there are plenty of people out there that stay nice and toasty with 'em though too. My personal opinion on why it didn't work out for you is that your heat load was too large for that particular unit and they seem to have to be kind of "matched" heat output to heat load to work _really_ well. I think that if you would have had a large EPA style wood furnace (say Caddy, or Max Caddy for instance)(those still have a smaller firebox than your DAKA BTW) you would have had _completely_ different results. But hey, you're warm, I'm warm, were all warm with wood heat. (kinda poetic, no? ) So what ever warms your cockels man!


----------



## PheasantHunter (Dec 7, 2014)

Curious which stoves you guys are using?


----------



## laynes69 (Dec 7, 2014)

We cut down wood consumption quite a bit. I will say the old furnace put out more heat at a given time, but petered out quickly. This resulted in an 80 degree home then 6-8 hours later a 68 degree home (where the thermostat was set). The chimney remains much cleaner and the heat is spread into the home over a longer time. I remember the march before we retired the old furnace. We burned over a cord of wood for that month alone. I'll never forget it because it was a large load from the amish. That amount now in the same weather would last at least twice as long. Now, our home is much tighter, but even before we improved things, the first year we reduced usage at least 2 cord.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 7, 2014)

The tests these stoves have to meet essentially measure the mass of particulates that go up the stack compared to the mass of wood that was in the firebox. That can roughly convert into the efficiency energy release of the wood that was in the firebox, as most of those particulates are molecules with carbon bonds, and the energy is stored in the carbon bonds of the wood. So if carbon molecules go up the stack then energy went up the stack. 

But that is total energy recovery, and it tells you nothing about rate of energy output because you don't know how long it took. However, since the energy is recovered by burning the particulates then generally you get a boost in output rate. Most of what I have read is that you can get a 50% increase in energy output rate (BTU/time) when the secondaries are running. But that is only for a portion of the fuel load. After the volatiles are cooked out and combusted the secondary combustion stops and the energy output rate decreases. 

It's important to note that the EPA tests don't tell you the energy output rate, that's a manufacturer's spec and may be total BS, and is probably the maximum output if it means anything. If there were a 3rd party test to determine that then one could put some faith in it, but for now it's just marketing. I think it makes more sense to measure the volume of the firebox to determine relative energy output rate (BTU/hour, etc).


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

I remember a while back I tried to say the same basic thing Chris-PA... they darn near ran me out'a here on a rail.
You'd have thought I was some sort of Nazi 

The EPA efficiency rating is simply the combustion efficiency... it ain't based on heating output verses heat lost to the stack. In other words, the way the testing is done, it would be _possible_ to achieve an 85% EPA efficiency rating while allowing 85% of the heat to flow out the stack. And then, those tests are done with oven-dried dimensional lumber (2x4 and 4x4 fir nailed together with spacers between them... called cribs). Meaning even the combustion efficiency number is worthless in the "real world"... a 75% "combustion" efficient stove could easily burn cleaner than a 85% "combustion" efficient stove once ya' start stuffin' cord wood in it. And none of it tells you what to expect as far as heating output... although it is reasonable to assume a higher "combustion" efficiency would give more heat (for the entire burn cycle, not per hour) if the stoves are of like design.

Since so many are speakin' from "observation" in this thread, I'll toss this out...
Goin' on the observation of heat waves, and holdin' my hand over the chimney when on the roof, my elitist stove dumps a lot more heat out the stack than my smoke dragon does... a whole lot more‼
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 7, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I remember a while back I tried to say the same basic thing Chris-PA... they darn near ran me out'a here on a rail.
> You'd have thought I was some sort of Nazi
> 
> The EPA efficiency rating is simply the combustion efficiency... it ain't based on heating output verses heat lost to the stack. In other words, the way the testing is done, it would be _possible_ to achieve an 85% EPA efficiency rating while allowing 85% of the heat to flow out the stack. And then, those tests are done with oven-dried dimensional lumber (2x4 and 4x4 fir nailed together with spacers between them... called cribs). Meaning even the combustion efficiency number is worthless in the "real world"... a 75% "combustion" efficient stove could easily burn cleaner than a 85% "combustion" efficient stove once ya' start stuffin' cord wood in it. And none of it tells you what to expect as far as heating output... although it is reasonable to assume a higher "combustion" efficiency would give more heat (for the entire burn cycle, not per hour) if the stoves are of like design.
> ...


I recall your speculation that the secondary combustion stoves dump more heat out the stack, but you've never provided any evidence of that nor any theory as to why that would be.

When my welded, sealed stove is
cranking with a major secondary combustion burn, the total air inlet is vey tiny - maybe the size of a dime or nickle (I'll have to try to measure it). The heat output into the room is almost frightening. The stack is not very hot, and there isn't much sign of anything exciting looking at the chimney top.

As to the crib wood - it is important to be consistent, and that is not easy with a fuel like wood. So if they had to trade off a bit of realism for consistency I can understand that. If you were submitting a product you'd like a level playing field. I think the fuel load still guves a decent relative comparison.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Dec 7, 2014)

Look, the idea is to extend the burn time without caking up the chimney with creosote, without losing BTUs and sending heat up the chimney, and thus improving thermal efficiency. Any other objective doesn't mean very much. Simple as that.

However, it ain't so simple to execute. Stove designers have been trying to do it for decades. And, we also lose energy cleaning chimneys clogged by energy efficient stoves. Somehow, that never gets added into the efficiency equation.

Great topic and fun to debate. opcorn:


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 7, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*As to the crib wood - it is important to be consistent, and that is not easy with a fuel like wood. So if they had to trade off a bit of realism for consistency I can understand that. If you were submitting a product you'd like a level playing field.*_


Interestingly, the new proposed regulations change the test fuel to cord wood... not sure how (or if) they're gonna' keep the playing field level, they don't specify. (shrug)
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 7, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Interestingly, the new proposed regulations change the test fuel to cord wood... not sure how (or if) they're gonna' keep the playing field level, they don't specify. (shrug)
> *


Yes, I had seen that and initially thought it was a good idea, but then was not so sure. I thought I read somewhere that's been dropped for now? It's probably too expensive to change the test and may not even work well. 

I'd prefer they leave the standard and test alone, but adapt it to include furnaces and OWBs.


----------



## firebrick43 (Dec 7, 2014)

Wood Doctor said:


> And, we also lose energy cleaning chimneys clogged by energy efficient stoves. Somehow, that never gets added into the efficiency equation.



Um, WHAT???


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 7, 2014)

I don't buy the seccondary air inlet being nickle sized.
The smallest epa stove I looked at had a inlet size of 1 inch by 1.75 inch. The "primary" inlet at the top of the door was less than one half of that area.
It was impossible to start a fire in that stove without leaving the door open.
Air flows thru the secondary all the time, removing heated room air without contributing anything to combustion for a great part of the burning cycle.
A good part of the time when many people think they are seeing secondary burn, what they are seeing is a hole being blown thru the flames by wasted air on the way up the stove pipe.
The heat derived from secondary burn could have been gotten by getting enough air at the base of the fire to burn the gasses given off the wood in the first place.


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 7, 2014)

The last few days have been quite warm and I have been using the stove to make charcoal for for grilling next summer. Charcoal is made by heating wood while depriving it of enough air for complete combustion. Epa stoves excel at turning firewood into grilling charcoal!


----------



## 7sleeper (Dec 7, 2014)

@Whitespider 

I have never heard of a elitist stove, what is it? Do you have a thread on it? 

Further


Whitespider said:


> Goin' on the observation of heat waves, and holdin' my hand over the chimney when on the roof, my elitist stove dumps a lot more heat out the stack than my smoke dragon does... a whole lot more‼
> *


if you have more heat out the chimney something is not correctly set up. I might have something mixed up but I do presume we are talking about something like a wood gasifier. Usually you have to fine tune your system so that you have enough heat even comming out your chimney to get out the carbon dioxide, etc. Or your system already has a lambda sensor and is virtually self regulating. Then you can dump in whatever type of wood you like it will always be close to perfect.

7


----------



## Cerran (Dec 7, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> So… more heat from *half* the wood??
> Let’s figure there’s 7000 BTUs in a pound of wood…
> 
> Let’s say, in 12 hours, I burn 100 pounds of it in my (supposedly) 55% efficient smoke dragon…
> ...



The average smoke dragon is lucky if it's 50% efficient, more like 40% and most EPA cat/non cat stoves are in the low 70's or high 60's.


----------



## sb47 (Dec 8, 2014)

I know for a fact that not all wood burning stoves are equal. If tested correctly, I can see where one stove design could be more efficient then other designs. At what stage during the entire burn does it produce the best heat? 
I have only been exposed to a very few types of wood heaters, but all of them seemed to put off heat in deferent ways and some better then others. 
Proper testing may prove the theory but I can see it being true.


----------



## flotek (Dec 8, 2014)

I don't care much about particulate emissions or EPA ratings . I do care about long burns and ability to keep my house comfortable on a small load of wood . I switched from a smoke dragon furnace to a EPA furnace and realistically cut my wood usage down by 25-30% . It is definitely a huge difference in wood use and we don't have the wild heat swings or 85 degree house at 2 in the morning .the cleaner burns are a nice side benefit . No math needed it's flat out better


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

woodchuck357 said:


> I don't buy the seccondary air inlet being nickle sized.
> The smallest epa stove I looked at had a inlet size of 1 inch by 1.75 inch. The "primary" inlet at the top of the door was less than one half of that area.
> It was impossible to start a fire in that stove without leaving the door open.
> Air flows thru the secondary all the time, removing heated room air without contributing anything to combustion for a great part of the burning cycle.
> ...


The Magnolia has a single air inlet that runs from the bottom of the stove up the back of the firebox - the tube is much larger than a nickle. There is a damper on the inlet of the tube and I was estimating the opening size when burning. There is no separate secondary inlet in that stove. The smaller stove we have upstairs does have a fixed secondary inlet, but it is small. They are not all built the same. 

This proposition that secondary burn stove lose more heat up the flue is just a wild-assed-guess with no mechanism to back it up. The secondary burn was not expected to last for the entire burn cycle of a load. Nevertheless, I have not seen any stoves pass the particulate emissions tests without secondary burn or a catalyst, and reduced particulate emissions means you extracted more energy from the wood. So the improved extraction of energy from the wood is shown by testing while greater losses of heat up the flue is a guess that has nothing behind it.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> _*I have never heard of a elitist stove, what is it? Do you have a thread on it?*_


http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...l-with-epa-phase-2.267043/page-3#post-5051173



Cerran said:


> _*The average smoke dragon is lucky if it's 50% efficient, more like 40% and most EPA cat/non cat stoves are in the low 70's or high 60's.*_


You're talkin' "energy" efficient rather than "combustion" efficient?? Well... I don't know what the numbers are. I'm thinking your numbers are a bit low for the smoke dragon, and even more likely a bit high for the "real world" elitist stove... but let's use them. Even using your numbers it don't change my point... 
7000 × 100 × .40 ÷ 12 = 23333 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × 50 × .70 ÷ 12 = 204166 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.

You still ain't getting *more* heat from *half* the wood... unless, of course, magic is involved.
Like I said, I might buy the *same* heat from 20%-25% less wood... maybe.
*


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 8, 2014)

Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*So the improved extraction of energy from the wood is shown by testing while greater losses of heat up the flue is a guess that has nothing behind it.*_


I wouldn't say "nothing behind it."

Maybe it ain't a "test" or scientific, but flue gasses exiting the chimney are definitely warmer by feel... at least by my feel, comparing my two units. That's "something"... ain't it??

How 'bout basic reasoning?? The firebox of my elitist stove is (was) near totally lined with firebrick (refractory brick)... which insulates the steel from heat (it ain't about thermal mass as some believe). Insulating the steel means less heat for it to radiate into the space around it... and, again, it ain't scientific, but my stove heated noticeably better when I removed the bricks from the sides. That's "something"... ain't it?? I mean, the brick keeps more heat in the combustion chamber for more complete combustion, meaning combustion gasses will be hotter, meaning the gasses exiting will be hotter... the (relatively) small uninsulated roof area can only transfer so much. Admittedly, the "glass" door used on an elitist stove does allow heat radiation to escape. That's the primary design purpose of the glass IMO... fire view is just the side benefit (if it means anything to you).

I don't believe the air inlet size means a whole lot to this discussion... the DAKA inlet hole behind the draft blower ain't very big either. The solid wood is being converted into heat energy and gasses... those gasses have a much larger volume than the wood (and incoming air). Well... if you do indeed have more complete combustion, you have a greater volume of combustion gasses (which, as noted above, should be hotter), and those gasses have to go somewhere. That's "something"... ain't it??



NSMaple1 said:


> _*Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.*_


Agreed‼
But remember... we're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency. The whole agenda is defective... they only look at the emissions (combustion efficiency), when it would make much more sense to balance the emissions verses the energy efficiency. Think about it?? If a stove produced 10% more emissions, but was 20% more energy efficient, the total emissions would be less to heat the same area. But it ain't really about emissions or efficiency, that's just the whitewash... it's about regulation and the control/power/money that comes with it.
*


----------



## olyman (Dec 8, 2014)

You don't have to... it ain't about you Del_, get over it.
*[/QUOTE]


----------



## olyman (Dec 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Of course it's not about me good buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> .....and pulling numbers out of your arse.


 and thats what fairys and gnomes do to your thought pattern???? spend less time in the garden,, honoring them,, and you MIGHT get straightened out.............


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> Seems to me any testing of efficiencies is rather defective if stack temperatures are not also part of the testing process.


The test was not intended to test stove efficiency, it was intended to test particulate emissions. Indirectly it also measures the efficiency of the extraction of energy from the logs. 

Now the discussion is about how much of that energy is lost vs. making it into the room. For which we have conjecture rather than data. The stove manufacturers don't even make up numbers for that. 



Whitespider said:


> The firebox of my elitist stove is (was) near totally lined with firebrick (refractory brick)


Near totally? Hardly. The bottom and a brick height on the sides. The rest of the steel and the door can radiate, and radiation is the primary means of heat energy transfer from the firebox. It goes up as the 4th power of the temperature difference.


----------



## Davej_07 (Dec 8, 2014)

I'm not one to stand on principles, they never stood on me.........but perhaps we could change the term to "more useable heat"? Obviously you can't extract additional btus from the wood, but no one can argue that you will get "more useable heat" from a stove than say, a prefab fireplace......


----------



## slowp (Dec 8, 2014)

My elitist, communist, socialist liberal stove heats my house. I know how to run it. Having an insulated house works well. Oh, and the air is piped into the elitist, communist, socialist, liberal, feminist stove from the crawlspace of the house. 

Did I mention the clean chimney after several winters of not cleaning? Of course, the gubmint is going to cause an epidemic of some nahsty and take my house away after they run me to a FEMA camp. There will be an exception for those of us who wear UNderwear....wink wink nod nod and leave the secret UN parking spaces open.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Near totally? Hardly.*_


Chris, the difference in _bare_ steel _directly_ exposed to the combustion chamber is _huge_ (friggin' huge) between my elitist stove (and/or those I've looked at) compared to any of my smoke dragons... past or present. The upper part of my stove is not _directly_ exposed to the combustion chamber... the secondary baffle sits between them (and then there's another steel heat shield between the baffle and the roof). And I did acknowledge the glass door.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Chris, the difference in _bare_ steel _directly_ exposed to the combustion chamber is _huge_ (friggin' huge) between my elitist stove (and/or those I've looked at) compared to any of my smoke dragons... past or present. The upper part of my stove is not _directly_ exposed to the combustion chamber... the secondary baffle sits between them (and then there's another steel heat shield between the baffle and the roof). And I did acknowledge the glass door.
> *




This is quite similar to the construction of my Magnolia. The brick is there to maintain the temperature of the fire to keep gasification (is that a word?!) going as long as possible. If we look at just the effect of the firebrick on heat transfer, and assume for the moment that the air inlet and gas flow up the flue are the same, and consider a situation where same energy is being released at the same rate in the fire but one has firebrick and one does not. 

All that will happen is that the temperature of the exposed steel will be hotter in the one with firebrick, because that released heat energy has to flow from the higher temp/concentration in the fire to the room. If the bricks block it in one area it will have to flow through the smaller non-insulated areas, which will raise the temperature there - but since radiative heat transfer goes up as the 4th power then as soon as the exposed areas get a little hotter the transfer rate will go up very fast and the total transfer rate from the fire to the room will not be reduced. 

So again, I'm not buying that there are more hot gases moving up the flue, or that more heat is moving up there either - certainly not due to the firebrick.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

OK Chris-PA ... so don't buy it then.
But understand, I'm not saying there's zero benefit to the user from the extra heat energy extraction... but, by the nature of a wood fired appliance, I don't believe the "_percentage_" lost through the stack, of total heat energy extracted, changes all that much. Meaning, extracting more heat energy would increase both realized heat and lost heat, you're not gettin' 100% of the "extra" into your home... I don't see how it would, or could be possible. More heat, is more heat... wherever, and everywhere it goes. No doubt, the "heat exchanger" design of the appliance will effect the percentage... no matter what the combustion configuration.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Meaning, extracting more heat energy would increase both realized heat and lost heat, you're not gettin' 100% of the "extra" into your home


I agree, you cannot get all of it. If the firebox temps are higher then the amount lost up the flue will probably be higher too. But that is true as well with any stove if you open it up to get the fire hotter, and individual designs will have different heat exchange effectiveness as you say. It's just another way of saying that a stove burning hotter loses a greater quantity of energy up the stack (but not necessarily a greater percentage) - the higher temps still give much greater radiative heat transfer.

I think the issue is whether you gain more by extracting more energy from the wood than you lose by having a higher temperature (and energy transfer rate) during secondary burn. I don't see how recovering the energy in the particulates could be a net negative, and my experience is that it is not.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*...a stove burning hotter loses a greater quantity of energy up the stack (but not necessarily a greater percentage)...*_
> _*I don't see how recovering the energy in the particulates could be a net negative...*_


Ah-ha... so we agree than 
I was never trying to claim net negative... just more heat out the stack is all.
Although, admittedly, I did leave some of that for the reader to conclude... because... well... ya' know?? Stir the pot and all.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...l-with-epa-phase-2.267043/page-3#post-5051173
> 
> 
> You're talkin' "energy" efficient rather than "combustion" efficient?? Well... I don't know what the numbers are. I'm thinking your numbers are a bit low for the smoke dragon, and even more likely a bit high for the "real world" elitist stove... but let's use them. Even using your numbers it don't change my point...
> ...



I never claimed half the wood, however you are getting a lot more heat from the same amount of wood.

7000 ×* 100* × .40 ÷ 12 = 23333 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
7000 × *50 *× .70 ÷ 12 = 204166 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.

If you load both stoves with the same amount of wood by your calculations:

7000 x 50 x 0.40 / 12 = 11,666 Btu/hr on average

versus

7000 x 50 * 0.70 / 12 = 20,416 Btu/hr on average

It has nothing to do with magic but rather how much of the products of combustion you burn off. I would make an educated guess on average across most stove models the newer stoves burn approximately 30% less wood for the same heat output.


----------



## Ironworker (Dec 8, 2014)

The EPA stoves are designed to work better and guess what, they do. Some just dont like them for the simple reason that they feel like the government is forcing them to use a specific stove. It's simple evolution and those that can't adapt will go the way of other species that couldn't or wouldn't adapt, exstinction.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*I would make an educated guess on average across most stove models the newer stoves burn approximately 30% wood for the same heat output.*_


What?? They use 70% less wood for the same heat??
Now that one I ain't buyin'... no friggin' way‼
(Or was that a typo on your part and you meant 30% less wood?? Which I still believe is a stretch.)



Ironworker said:


> _*The EPA stoves are designed to work better and guess what, they do.*_


Well... I'll argue that all day long.
They are designed, out of necessity, to pass the EPA test procedures‼ Whether-or-not they actually work "_better_" will depend on more variables than I care to get into. For some applications they likely do work "_better_"... other applications, not so much.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> What?? They use 70% less wood for the same heat??
> Now that one I ain't buyin'... no friggin' way‼
> (Or was that a typo on your part and you meant 30% less wood?? Which I still believe is a stretch.)
> 
> ...



I think you missed my statement. I did say 30% less wood. You say it's a stretch, but on whole the experience over this board and the hearth boards is that the newer stoves do outperform the old ones in both heat output and wood usage.

Yes they are designed to pass EPA test procedures, but in doing so they also improve upon the old designs and improve efficiency. I have no love for the EPA, but I'm not going to discount that the new stoves work better just because they are EPA approved either.

Lets face it, you're basing your entire opinion on a sample size of one stove.

Good study on stoves to look over:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...URHahYl03U6J_tw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw&cad=rja

I would be very interested to see a side by side comparison of EPA versus non in an output and emissions test.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Yes they are designed to pass EPA test procedures, but in doing so they also improve upon the old designs and improve efficiency.*_


By who's standard??
Improved efficiency of what?? Combustion efficiency?? So what?? That means nothing to the "rate" of heating output (i.e., BTUs per hour). Combustion efficiency is a measure of how much wood is consumed (converted to heat energy) over the _entire burn cycle_... not a measure of heat output.



Cerran said:


> _*I'm not going to discount that the new stoves work better just because they are EPA approved either.*_


I ain't discounting anything... I'm simply saying that an elitist stove ain't the be-all-to-end-all you're saying it is.
You're the one "_discounting_" that the smoke dragon may be a better choice for certain applications... I've acknowledged several times the elitist stove may be the better choice for certain applications.



Cerran said:


> _*Lets face it, you're basing your entire opinion on a sample size of one stove.*_


NO‼ I am not...
But let me ask you... what sample size (of both types) are you basing _your opinion_ on??
Because, no matter how you slice it, that's all it is... _your opinion_‼
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> By who's standard??
> Improved efficiency of what?? Combustion efficiency?? So what?? That means nothing to the "rate" of heating output (i.e., BTUs per hour). Combustion efficiency is a measure of how much wood is consumed (converted to heat energy) over the _entire burn cycle_... not a measure of heat output.
> 
> 
> ...



Both improved combustion efficiency and heating efficiency. As for who's standard that would be under any testing method from ASME to CSA.

A older non-reburn stove is not going to be a better choice for almost any application unless you're trying to burn inefficiently or improperly.

(fyi calling it an "elitist" stove just demonstrates bias)

I'm basing my opinion upon the facts and experience with several stoves (7 I've helped replace so far) that I've helped family members and friends replace.

Also I have read the studies and have almost 20 years experience as a professional engineer with solid fuel combustion in boilers and wood energy systems

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei17/session4/houck.pdf&ei=xDeGVOSuAcOfyATZqYCwBQ&usg=AFQjCNE_Mu1qzuu1QZCg59UThuRIF6WESQ&sig2=-ZoUSCZttplhhELnsR7n1w&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw&cad=rja


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...URHahYl03U6J_tw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw&cad=rja


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Both improved combustion efficiency and heating efficiency.*_


Show me the tests and numbers.
We've already been through that in this thread... there ain't no comparative testing or "proof" of improved heating efficiency, only combustion efficiency.



Cerran said:


> _*(fyi calling it an "elitist" stove just demonstrates bias)*_


Just as the term "smoke dragon" demonstrates the same bias... I'm just playin' along.



Cerran said:


> _*I'm basing my opinion upon the facts and experience with several stoves... family members... friends...*_


Yup, same here.
Admittedly some like the elitist stoves better than others. But almost to a man they "dislike" the same things (compared to the smoke dragon)...

During secondary combustion the heat output is difficult to control.
When the secondary shuts-down heat output is drastically reduced.
They haf'ta "fiddle" with the thing a lot more.
Excessive coal build-up during times of high heat demand.
In _my opinion_, that ain't "_better_"... or even an improvement‼



Cerran said:


> _*Also I have read the studies and have almost 20 years experience as a professional engineer...*_


Playin' the engineer card holds no weight with me.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Show me the tests and numbers.
> We've already been through that in this thread... there ain't no comparative testing or "proof" of improved heating efficiency, only combustion efficiency.
> 
> 
> ...



Odd that that list is your same list of complaints about your particular stove. The claim that secondary combustion is hard to control heat output hasn't been the case with any stove I've helped install including:

Quadrafire 3100i
Englander 13NCL
Quadrafire Isle Royale
Kuma Sequoia
Blaze King Princess
Englander 30NC
PE Summit

All of the stoves seem to be easy to control during the peak of the fire when heat output is highest and none have experienced the excessive coal buildup you complain about. The only real complaint I've heard is the minimum turndown on the newer stoves is higher than their non-epa counterparts, but given the goal of emissions reductions this would be expected.

As for the lack of comparative proof, if you sort through the numbers it is there, the newer stoves have lower stack temps (better heating efficiency) and lower emissions indicating more complete combustion (better combustion efficiency).


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Del_ said:


> _*It was pointed out to Spider in the past that the chimney draft was way too high in his install. He also has multiple appliances hooked to the same chimney.
> His bad install is a direct result of the EPA!*_


As usual, you're full of $h!t Del. My elitist stove has been installed in the shop for well over a year now... installed _*exactly*_ per manufacturer's specifications. There has be zero... absolutely zero improvement. If you're gonna' try and add something to the discussion... at least try and add something of relative value instead of your self-serving bu!!$h!t.



Cerran said:


> _*...if you sort through the numbers it is there...*_


No... at least not that supports your claim of better heating efficiency (except through your own conjecture).

See... I believe too often in discussion such as this, too much emphasis is placed on fuel efficiency as the be-all-to-end-all. Sure, there are times when fuel efficiency is a consideration; such as lookin' to buy a car for my teenage daughter for drivin' back and forth to work. But if I'm lookin' for a truck to pull my stock trailer across the county horsepower comes way before fuel efficiency.

Now if I'm lookin' to put a stove in my cozy little den for a little ambiance and supplemental heat... and especially if I buy my firewood, fuel efficiency would be a consideration. But if I'm lookin' to heat my entire drafty, uninsulated, old farm house when it's -20° and blowin'... horsepower (i.e., BTU output per hour) is the _only_ friggin' consideration. (And don't talk at me about insulation... we're talking about the difference in applications.)

I guarantee when high heat, really high heat, hour after hour after hour after hour is required, a smoke dragon pullin' air up through the fire from the bottom is gonna' outperform and elitist stove every friggin' time. Hang the friggin' fuel consumption, more horsepower requires more fuel. And it ain't linear, more horsepower necessarily means lower fuel efficiency (even in your elitist stove)... always has been that way, always will be.

What is, or isn't, "_better_" ain't as cut 'n' dried as you make it out to be... it's never been as simple as a few "efficiency" numbers.
I'm not the one in denial here, I fully concede to the points from the "other side"... it's the "other side" that (usually) refuses to concede any points from this side.
And that's why I call them "elitist stoves"... it friggin' fits.
*


----------



## nathon918 (Dec 8, 2014)

can we get one of the 100's of these Smoke Dragon vs. EPA stove ***** fest's put into a sticky? seems all of the same people forgot they already argued this BS far too many times...


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 8, 2014)

A friend bought a "custom" knife for which he paid nearly 500 clams, it has sharp corners that make using it rough on the hand and doesn't hold an edge for crap, but to hear him tell it there is no better knife in the world. 
Some of that comes into play when folks talk about their stoves. Something they spent big bucks on HAS to be better.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> As usual, you're full of $h!t Del. My elitist stove has been installed in the shop for well over a year now... installed _*exactly*_ per manufacturer's specifications. There has be zero... absolutely zero improvement. If you're gonna' try and add something to the discussion... at least try and add something of relative value instead of your self-serving bu!!$h!t.
> 
> 
> No... at least not that supports your claim of better heating efficiency (except through your own conjecture).
> ...



Actually it does support my claim of heating efficiency, and it's not conjecture.

Efficiency means the amount of useful work (thermal energy output in this case) versus the fuel input.

If the inputs are the same and the stack temps and emissions are lower, then the stove with the lower stack emissions and lower stack temperature is more efficient. It's simple thermodynamics and an energy balance.

We weren't ever talking about output until you brought it up, we were talking about efficiency and wood consumption. 

Earlier in the discussion you said starving the fire for air at the bottom was stupid, and yet almost all modern industrial solid fuel boilers do exactly that.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> But if I'm lookin' to heat my entire drafty, uninsulated, old farm house when it's -20° and blowin'...


-20° doesn't happen here anymore, but we heat our 180 year old house with an "EPA" secondary burn stove. We have a second, smaller "EPA" stove as well that is sometime used instead, sometimes in addition. Single pane old sashes with no storm windows. Precious little insulation. There is no backup heating system. It is, however, not very drafty. 

As I said at the time, your stove had too low a capacity - the peak output with secondary combustion may have been just adequate, but the output profile over time was incompatible with your need for a high continuous output, especially with no thermal mass to smooth it out. You needed a bigger stove - there is no one to regulate btu/hour output claims so they are the typical lies and BS you would expect. 

Now you have it in an uninsulated shop and it is still too small. 

My stoves are surrounded by stone. This helps smooth out the heat output profile. Then too, we don't care much if the temperature stays constant from room to room or over time. All with these stoves you claim don't work - and we are not the only ones heating our homes with them. 

Ambiance and supplemental heat my ass.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*If the *__*inputs are the same*__* and the stack temps and emissions are lower, then the stove with the lower stack emissions and lower stack temperature is more efficient.*_


Good lord man... do I have to spell it out for you??
The friggin' inputs ain't the same... and if you take the time to read your link carefully, they clearly state that‼



Chris-PA said:


> _*-20° doesn't happen here anymore...
> My stoves are surrounded by stone. This helps smooth out the heat output profile.*_


So... now we're back to different applications... huh??
So what has changed??
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

woodchuck357 said:


> Some of that comes into play when folks talk about their stoves. Something they spent big bucks on HAS to be better.


Wanna take a guess at how many big bucks I spent on my fancy stove? I bought it new a few years ago.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> So... now we're back to different applications... huh??
> So what has changed??


The application where I heat my house with a type of wood stove you claim doesn't work, and that only people who are using it for ambiance are satisfied with?

I'm not sure what you are asking has changed.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 8, 2014)

Naw, no need for me to guess what ya' paid Chris-PA , I already know...
You bought it where all the elitist's shop... TSC 
See... I'm never so drunk I don't remember.

C'mon man, where did I say they "_don't work_" (don't pull that on me), I'm sayin' they ain't always the best choice... c'mon.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> C'mon man, where did I say they "_don't work_" (don't pull that on me), I'm sayin' they ain't always the best choice... c'mon.


You've come close enough! 

I don't actually care if people burn older stoves - my Dad does and it works great. He's had it since I was a teenager and knows how to run it. It seldom smokes much and there's no one for it to bother anyway. I suspect his flue is too short and has too little draft to pull much air velocity through the secondary manifold, and that it would not work for him - so I agree it's not the best choice for him. 

Then again he's not heating his whole house with it. So I guess a smoke dragon is a decent choice if you just want a little ambiance in the den....


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 8, 2014)

More on topic with the OP, I've been building up coals the last few days, as we've been burning hickory. Plus my wife had loaded it heavy and stopped it down a bit too far. I need to get some more ash moved down to the house! The type of wood you burn can make a difference. I burned a lot of them up tonight but not quite enough. 

I'm going to try to actually come down and adjust the air inlet during the night - I haven't done that in years I don't think. 

Well the stove is loaded and cranking with a nice secondary burn, and it is 90 in the basement (with the blower pulling all the air it can off the top of the room). I'm off to bed.


----------



## sb47 (Dec 8, 2014)

It is silly to argue these points without considering all the variables involved in any application and the end result.
Even something as simple as the wind direction and how hard its blowing plays a role in how well my stove preforms from day to day.
Even my own perception of how cold it feels from day to day will have an effect on how I perceive how well my stove is preforming. 
So to sit here and continually argue numbers vs. application is silly.
As with anything results will vary, its as simple as that.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 8, 2014)

Coming from the point of view as a PE T-6 owner, my stove is VERY efficient (with good output until the secondaries extinguish) if I keep it damped all the way down after solid light-off. I have to do this to get good mileage out of it. If I run it any faster the cycle period of high and low output (very noticeable by feel) is greatly reduced and greatly pronounced. To keep from building up an entire bed full of coals when it's under about 25°F I have to basically let it burn almost to the point of extinguishment/exhaustion before re-loading or it will build up a box full of coals in short order with roughly 1/3-1/4 of it's usual heat output and no more room for fresh fuel. Running the draft/throttle higher to burn the coals more efficiently only exacerbates the problem. Once the secondaries quit, I usually open the door to let the coals burn down, to avoid shoveling out burning coals just to make room for more wood. This makes for a cranky wife. We're heating about 2400sqft and have been slowly insulating and increasing the efficiency of the house as funds have allowed. When it's below 30° the propane central heat is cycling on/of set at 67-68°. When the secondaries are going the output is nice. As soon as they shut down, it feels like the output is cut by 50%.

For reference, we're burning Locust, Oak, Maple, Hedge, Ash and a bit of Cedar (as starter/shoulder season wood). We have constant North or South winds in KS so my stacks are all N/S to take advantage of the wicking process. I do need to get a hydrometer to have definitive numbers, but, when I get a load of wood to refill the house, the bark readily falls off and the logs light usually within 20-30 seconds. There are no other devices connected to the stack and it is 2.5 stories tall with 4x 45° elbows in it, professionally installed and inspected.

Pros: 
It is fairly miserly with wood. - Not as much as my buddies VC Defiant CAT stove, but more so than most of thee non-epa fireboxes.
It burns VERY cleanly - We had the chimney cleaned after 3 years of burning and the total amount of articulate filled up about 1/4 of the small, skinny coffee cans (whatever volume they are).
There is virtually no visible smoke outside of light-ups/re-lights.
When the secondaries are lit, it heats amazingly well.
Cons:
It's rated for a 20" log but 16-18" is about ideal. I'd rather burn 24" logs. (less bucking/splitting).
If I feed it like an old stove (reloading when the previous load has settled down to a flat coal bed) over about 6 hrs, it will build up a bed of coals deep enough to almost make it impossible to put more wood in, without either letting them burn down to ash, OR carrying a large bucket of live coals out of the house to make room for more wood.
Starting it (cold stove) with Hedge is almost impossible without leaving the door open until a good coal bed has formed. 
When the secondaries go out, the heat output sucks.
I seem to have to replace the door gaskets yearly and the glass gaskets every 2 years.

Do I regret buying an EPA stove? No
Have I regained my initial expenditure back in heat savings over propane? YES!
Would I buy anther PE stove? NO. It would be a Jotul Black bear or a VC Defiant as a zone heater or a OWB for a whole-house solution.
For heat output with regards to consistency, duration and total volume, I'd be better off with a double barrel stove, even using it as a zone heater, but I don't want to go through that much fuel, so I'll deal with the things that piss me off about my elitist stove until I can afford to replace it with a VC or Jotul unit.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Coming from the point of view as a PE T-6 owner, my stove is VERY efficient (with good output until the secondaries extinguish) if I keep it damped all the way down after solid light-off. I have to do this to get good mileage out of it. If I run it any faster the cycle period of high and low output (very noticeable by feel) is greatly reduced and greatly pronounced. To keep from building up an entire bed full of coals when it's under about 25°F I have to basically let it burn almost to the point of extinguishment/exhaustion before re-loading or it will build up a box full of coals in short order with roughly 1/3-1/4 of it's usual heat output and no more room for fresh fuel. Running the draft/throttle higher to burn the coals more efficiently only exacerbates the problem. Once the secondaries quit, I usually open the door to let the coals burn down, to avoid shoveling out burning coals just to make room for more wood. This makes for a cranky wife. We're heating about 2400sqft and have been slowly insulating and increasing the efficiency of the house as funds have allowed. When it's below 30° the propane central heat is cycling on/of set at 67-68°. When the secondaries are going the output is nice. As soon as they shut down, it feels like the output is cut by 50%.
> 
> For reference, we're burning Locust, Oak, Maple, Hedge, Ash and a bit of Cedar (as starter/shoulder season wood). We have constant North or South winds in KS so my stacks are all N/S to take advantage of the wicking process. I do need to get a hydrometer to have definitive numbers, but, when I get a load of wood to refill the house, the bark readily falls off and the logs light usually within 20-30 seconds. There are no other devices connected to the stack and it is 2.5 stories tall with 4x 45° elbows in it, professionally installed and inspected.
> 
> ...



That sounds similar to the issues Spidey had with his PE on the coals. I've never had that issue with my Quadrafire and none of the other people I've helped install stoves with have had that issue either. Some of my friends burn hardwood (Apple, locust, some maple etc) the rest of us burn red fir and larch.

I've never replaced the gaskets on mine and it's on year 10. I do a dollar bill test a couple times a year to verify a good seal.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*So I guess a smoke dragon is a decent choice if you just want a little ambiance in the den....*_


Smoke dragon... no glass door.... no view of the fire... no ambiance...
Don't make such a big deal out of my ambiance comment... I can't count how many times I've been told (on this board) how much I'm missing without a glass door and fire view.  I can't tell you how many times it's been posted by someone here they wouldn't give up the glass door fire view (ambiance) for any sort of stove. Heck, Del_ went on about it for over a year... on, and on, and on, and on, and on about it. Then, after I got a glass door elitist stove... he became an installation pro and could even diagnose a bad install from hundreds of miles away while lookin' at his keyboard. He must know magic...



Chris-PA said:


> _*...and it is 90 in the basement...*_


Lord, I really hate that...
Happily, it's 70° in the basement... 70° in the living room... 70° in the kitchen... 70° in the dining room... 70° in the bath room... 70° in all the bed rooms... and even 70° in the den 
I'd be totally pizzed-off and miserable if it was 90° in the basement... that's where my hang-out is... that's where my guns and ammunition reloading area is... that's where the beer cooler is... that's where I'm sitting (barefoot) now‼
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Some of my friends burn hardwood (Apple, locust, some maple etc) the rest of us burn red fir and larch.*_


I'm burning a lot of Silver Maple and ash out in the shop in my elitist stove right now... last weekend temps were in the 30s and even low 40's. Burning that kind of wood in mild(ish) weather I can almost get through the day without shoveling out coals to make room for a reload... almost get through a day, if I keep stirrin' (fiddlin' with) the fire. Forget burning oak... ya' just waste ½ of it when ya' throw out the coals.

The problem ain't just limited to PE stoves... I hear the same complaint from everyone I know with an elitist stove with a firebrick floor. Some have more problems than others... but all say it gets much worse as temperatures drop. Maybe my stove is too small like some try to say, maybe everyone I know has a stove too small (or maybe it's just friggin' cold here). But what the he!! does stove size have to do with a bed of coals not burning up... and worse, not heating?? I mean... c'mon... my grandfather heated his entire general store with a little pot-bellied stove. Poor heating performance is poor heating performance... excuses are excuses.

I don't believe it's stove size, I don't believe it's bad installs. I believe it's real simple, the design can't keep up with demand when heat loss is high... the greater the demand and heat loss, the worse the performance (after secondary shuts down). That's the common thread I see, no matter the stove size. I get told about insulation, new windows, tighten up the drafts, and whatnot... yeah OK, I agree that's a good idea. But seriously?? I haf'ta improve my home to "fix" my stove... c'mon, that's just an excuse. What if I wanna' use the thing to heat my old barn??
*


----------



## huntindog1 (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> So… more heat from *half* the wood??
> Let’s figure there’s 7000 BTUs in a pound of wood…
> 
> Let’s say, in 12 hours, I burn 100 pounds of it in my (supposedly) 55% efficient smoke dragon…
> ...




Here is the reason you get more heat out of the efficient stove than the smoke dragon. By having an insulated fire box that builds and holds more heat you can turn down your input air to really low levels and still keep the smoke gases burning. Being able to lower the input air down to those extra low levels is actually meaning the air flow thru the stove is far less. With slower movement thru the stove the heat in the stove has more residual time to radiate out the stove top and the front of the stove which is how the newer stoves radiate heat. With a smoke dragon you dont have the heat built up in the stove as high and you have to keep the input air open more to keep the fire burning. You can open the air more to get a more efficient burn maybe up to that 55% your talking about for a smoke dragon but when you do that your air flows thru the stove are increased and more of the heat gets flushed up the flue. Those efficiency numbers are combustion efficiency numbers and are not efficiency numbers of how much heat gets out into the house. One of the main advantages of the newer epa stoves is you can turn it down to a low burn rate and still operate at high efficiency with no smoke out the flue. A smoke dragon dampered down for an all night burn is not burning at 55% efficiency as the more smoke and the more dense the smoke out the flue from a dampered down smoke dragon stove is a visual display of poor efficiency.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Happily, it's 70° in the basement... 70° in the living room... 70° in the kitchen... 70° in the dining room... 70° in the bath room... 70° in all the bed rooms... and even 70° in the den


Yes, and this is the crux of the problem - fossil fuel heating system expectations. A heating oil/gas heating system has a very high instantaneous heat output rate, and can be modulated from zero to full by varying the on time. They also have very effective heat exchangers from burner to air or water to distribute the heat throughout the house. 

Wood stoves don't do well in any of those things. All of them have a heat output that varies over time, and cannot be throttled down very far without combustion issues. It's tough to match the BTU/hr of a fossil fuel burner system. Heat exchangers are problematic, especially on your jury-rigged "Stovace". With no heat energy storage and the requirement to move the heat from where the stove is to where you want the heat, your only strategy to achieve constant temps over time and space is to run the stove at a sufficiently high output rate continually, burn to ashes and reload and repeat. The PE Spectrum probably only barely matched the energy output rate you needed during max secondary burn, and then during the post-secondary it didn't put out the heat you needed. The burn cycle is described in the manual for the stove.

Given the air you were blowing over it and having removed the firebrick, I suspect you were also cooling off the firebox and terminating secondary burn even earlier while not actually getting an effective heat exchange anyway - especially at the cooler temperatures post secondary. This likely generated even more ash than usual, which you could not wait to burn off, so you threw the ashes out along with the energy contained within them. So you didn't realize a reduction in wood use either. 

This is why I have said the stove was too small for your expectations, and part of that is that your expectations require a large stove burning at a high constant rate. An actual well designed wood furnace can do what you want, but no one has worked out how to do efficient or clean burning when heavily throttled, and heat exchangers can still be problematic given the dirty combustion compared to oil/gas. 

Many of us who heat successfully with these stoves are not burdened with your expectations of temperatures that never vary in time or location, and place them in parts of the dwelling that we actually want heated. Further, some of us have some thermal storage to reduce the temperature variations. There isn't any mystery or magic here, not about what was wrong with your installation nor about how to use one of these stoves effectively.


----------



## steve md (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I'm burning a lot of Silver Maple and ash out in the shop in my elitist stove right now... last weekend temps were in the 30s and even low 40's. Burning that kind of wood in mild(ish) weather I can almost get through the day without shoveling out coals to make room for a reload... almost get through a day, if I keep stirrin' (fiddlin' with) the fire. Forget burning oak... ya' just waste ½ of it when ya' throw out the coals.
> 
> The problem ain't just limited to PE stoves... I hear the same complaint from everyone I know with an elitist stove with a firebrick floor. Some have more problems than others... but all say it gets much worse as temperatures drop. Maybe my stove is too small like some try to say, maybe everyone I know has a stove too small (or maybe it's just friggin' cold here). But what the he!! does stove size have to do with a bed of coals not burning up... and worse, not heating?? I mean... c'mon... my grandfather heated his entire general store with a little pot-bellied stove. Poor heating performance is poor heating performance... excuses are excuses.
> 
> ...


I have a cheap as stoves go Englander nc 30,and I don't have any of these problems . every 8 hours or so I just open the air control up ,stir the coals a little ,load the stove up,shut the air almost all the way closed in about 15 minutes then repeat .I burn 2+year old red and white oak and I only empty my ashes about once a week.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

steve md said:


> I have a cheap as stoves go Englander nc 30,and I don't have any of these problems . every 8 hours or so I just open the air control up ,stir the coals a little ,load the stove up,shut the air almost all the way closed in about 15 minutes then repeat .I burn 2+year old red and white oak and I only empty my ashes about once a week.



I helped a friend install a NC30 and he loves it. His wife isn't a fan of the looks but likes the heat it puts out. He's living in a ~2500 square foot split level and heats the whole place with it. His experience is similar to yours Steve, his first year burning he had some not fully dry wood and had a few issues until I traded him a cord of unseasoned wood for a cord of seasoned wood and a case of beer.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Smoke dragon... no glass door.... no view of the fire... no ambiance...
> Don't make such a big deal out of my ambiance comment... I can't count how many times I've been told (on this board) how much I'm missing without a glass door and fire view.  I can't tell you how many times it's been posted by someone here they wouldn't give up the glass door fire view (ambiance) for any sort of stove. Heck, Del_ went on about it for over a year... on, and on, and on, and on, and on about it. Then, after I got a glass door elitist stove... he became an installation pro and could even diagnose a bad install from hundreds of miles away while lookin' at his keyboard. He must know magic...



Actually it's not glass, it's high temperature ceramic and I find the window to be invaluable when it comes to reloading the stove and when to turn the stove up and down to get the desired output.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

huntindog1 said:


> _*By having an insulated fire box that builds and holds more heat you can turn down your input air to really low levels and still keep the smoke gases burning. ... One of the main advantages of the newer epa stoves is you can turn it down to a low burn rate and still operate at high efficiency...*_
> _*A smoke dragon dampered down for an all night burn is not burning at 55% efficiency as the more smoke and the more dense the smoke out the flue from a dampered down smoke dragon stove is a visual display of poor efficiency.*_


First of all, if you think intentionally smolderin' the wood to burn the smoke is operatin' at "high efficiency"... think again‼ There's a reason the EPA testing procedure allows a stove to fail the "low" burn test *if* it can pass the "medium" and "high" burn test three consecutive times... it's because few, if any, can pass the "low" burn testing.
Second, I don't "damper down" my smoke dragon, I don't adjust anything. I simply open the door, toss in the wood, and slam the door. The thermostat starts the draft blower most mornings around 5:30, a few minutes after I do the mornin' loadin'... runs for anywhere from ½ to 1½ hours depending on how cold it is outside. Sometimes it will start-up after dark for a few minutes, maybe once during the day if it's really cold out, and on a real nasty night I hear it kick on 'round 2-3:00 in the morning for a bit. Just for FYI, I usually turn in 'round 8:30 PM (give-or-take) so I load the smoke dragon about 8:00, and forget it until 5:00 when I roll out (9 hours)... the thermostat does auto lower itself from 70° to 66° at 9:00 PM.
Third, my smoke dragon doesn't "smoke", except for a couple minutes immediately after loading... actually, my elitist stove smokes more after loading than the smoke dragon does.



steve md said:


> _*...every 8 hours or so I just open the air control up ,stir the coals a little ,load the stove up,shut the air almost all the way closed in about 15 minutes then repeat...*_


I just open the door every 6-12 hours (depending), toss some wood in, slam the door... done‼



Cerran said:


> _*I find the glass to be invaluable when it comes... to when to turn the stove up and down to get the desired output.*_


Hmmmm.... that must suck for you?? I never have to fiddle with anything‼



Chris-PA said:


> _*Yes, and this is the crux of the problem - fossil fuel heating system expectations.*_
> _*Wood stoves don't do well in any of those things. All of them have a heat output that varies over time, and cannot be throttled down very far without combustion issues. It's tough to match the BTU/hr of a fossil fuel burner system.*_


You must mean "elitist" wood stoves don't do well in any of those things... 'cause I've never had problems meeting my expectations with any of my smoke dragons. It's simple... those are my expectations... that's what I've always had, that's what I want (shrug)... b'sides, burnin' the stuff should be the easy part‼
Like I said, elitist stoves ain't the be-all-to-end-all some of these guys think they are... they ain't always the right choice for all applications (or expectations, I guess)... and you just made my point for me.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Hmmmm.... that must suck for you?? I never have to fiddle with anything‼
> *



You don't have to "fiddle" with anything because you have so much heat loss in your house. Part of owning a wood stove is setting the output based on the burn stage of your wood. I heat my entire house on ~3 Cord a year (give or take half a cord).


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*You don't have to "fiddle" with anything because you have so much heat loss in your house. Part of owning a wood stove is setting the output based on the burn stage of your wood.*_


You don't have a clue at all... do you??

THERE AIN'T ANYTHING TO ADJUST ON MY SMOKE DRAGON‼ ZILCH‼ ZIP‼ NOTHING‼ NADA‼

You regulate the standby heat output by the quantity and quality of fuel you load it with. On a warm(ish) day ya' just toss in a couple or three splits of elm or ash, on a cold-azz night ya' toss in more, on a really nasty-azz windy night ya' load some oak in there with it. The idea is to load it just a tad light, so it slowly loses ground in standby as the circulation blower cycles on and off from air-jacket temperature. When the temp in the house drops ½° below set point (digital t-stat), the draft blower kicks in and brings the fire roaring to life until the house temperature raises to ½° above set point (10 or 15 minutes depending on the fuel load). At that point the draft blower stops, the fire goes back into standby mode with just enough heat to cycle the circulation blower on for a couple minutes, every 15-20 minutes or so. That circulation keeps the house at a steady even temperature... plus it pulls the return air through a furnace filter to keep everything clean and dust free. It may be hours before the draft blower kicks on again, or even a full day... often the only time it runs is for a short time at 5:30 AM when set point automatically goes from 66° to 70°.

I'll say it again... the idea is to load it just a tad light, so it slowly loses ground in standby, and let the draft blower catch the furnace up with demand (if needed). If I loaded that thing to the gills during the day, even a -10° day... it would turn our house into a sauna just idling in standby mode. Most days I load the thing in the morning when I roll out at 5:00 Am, the draft blower starts up 5:30 to raise the temp from 66° to 70°... and it don't get loaded again until after dark that night (if temps are in single digits or lower the wife might toss in 3 or 4 splits mid-afternoon).

70° all day long (66° at night), in every room, every day, no matter what the weather... I don't adjust crap, 'cause there ain't crap to adjust.

Part of owning a wood stove is setting the output based on the burn stage of your wood... my azz‼
Part of owning an _*elitist stove*_ is fiddling with the damn thing... I want no part of it. I don't even haf'ta "clean" the ashes out'a mine, I just pull the drawer out, dump, and slide the drawer back in... and I can do that no matter what stage the fire is in.

Makin' firewood should be the hard part... burnin' it should be the easy part... if makin' the burnin' part the easy part also means burnin a little more wood, so-be-it, it's worth every friggin' stick‼
*
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Controlling a smoke dragon has very little to do with "adjusting" it... it's mostly about how you load it.
If ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin', ya' never need to "adjust" anything... and it won't "smoke" neither‼
And... if ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin'... they burn a whole lot more _efficiently_ than you imagine.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Controlling a smoke dragon has very little to do with "adjusting" it... it's mostly about how you load it.
> If ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin', ya' never need to "adjust" anything... and it won't "smoke" neither‼
> And... if ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin'... they burn a whole lot more _efficiently_ than you imagine.
> *



So you are trading ability to control heat output with adjustments (more finite control) with a control method (adjust wood supply) that is grossly inaccurate in comparison.

You're basically making the claim that somehow making 2 maybe 3 adjustments over the course of 8 hours is a deal breaker which simply doesn't make any sense. Not to mention you have automatic control which makes air adjustments for you.


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> As usual, you're full of $h!t Del. My elitist stove has been installed in the shop for well over a year now... installed _*exactly*_ per manufacturer's specifications. There has be zero... absolutely zero improvement. If you're gonna' try and add something to the discussion... at least try and add something of relative value instead of your self-serving bu!!$h!t.
> 
> No... at least not that supports your claim of better heating efficiency (except through your own conjecture).
> 
> ...



You're off the mark with the engine hp/fuel efficiency comments. I can give good of examples of low HP old engines using significantly greater amounts of fuel than modern counterparts to do less work and produce less power. I can also give examples of how properly matching engine displacement and power range to vehicle and load can improve overall efficiency and reduce fuel consumption over time. Poor analogy.

Lots to say about why reburn / secondary burn works well but likely old news. I'm using at least 30% less wood with this stove than the old one I removed and we feel warmer than before. I'll stand by that number. It's not magic. It's because more of the HC's released from the wood are able to burn. Heat regulation is made easier by using varying size pieces of wood and varied species, too. How ya load it, just like an old stove. Part number stickers on single wall pipe attached to stove didn't turn brown for over two years after install. No high flue temps there. Ingrained thinking to fill firebox with high density wood and large pieces will result in high output that's harder to regulate. Fault of operator. I (over)load stove around 12:00 pm with large piece and start secondary burn, house temp rises and drops during sleep, we wake to comfortable temperature. Sucks to get up at 12:00 to reload, though.

I have installed a smaller reburner in the barn so I'll be watching that one. Stove is grossly undersized, barn is grossly uninsulated. Changes to come in that area. Sounds closer to the drafty farmhouse application you're describing than the stove in my house. Will it fill with coals and not be useful to make good heat? It does coal up sometimes but I haven't found it running out of heat. I switch to light species or punky stuff that burns faster to keep secondary burn going while coals burn down some. Not too hard for me to work with that. But I'll watch over time. It doesn't make as much heat as the barrel stove in the old shop, but it's also about 1/3 the size of the old stove and the barn has much greater heat loss.



> I don't believe it's stove size, I don't believe it's bad installs. I believe it's real simple, the design can't keep up with demand when heat loss is high...


Now that's just backward. You're saying that no matter how large the stove, it can't possibly provide enough heat because of the design. That's counter to common sense and practical experience.



> Part of owning an _*elitist stove*_ is fiddling with the damn thing... I want no part of it.



FWIW there's no "fiddling" with either of my stoves. My wife can run them successfully, and I'd say she's more of a bassist than a fiddler. There are downsides and I've spoken about them before. Fiddling is not one of them.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*So you are trading ability to control heat output with adjustments (more finite control) with a control method (adjust wood supply) that is grossly inaccurate in comparison.*_


If it's so damn "inaccurate", why doesn't my house vary in temperature no matter the weather??
Like I said, if ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin'...



Cerran said:


> _*You're basically making the claim that somehow making 2 maybe 3 adjustments over the course of three hours is a deal breaker which simply doesn't make any sense.*_


Why doesn't it make sense?? That's silly?? The firebox is in the basement, I'm not always home, even if I'm home I'm not always in the house, and I turn in 'round 8:30... not haf'in to fiddle with it makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it makes one he!!-of a-lot of sense to me‼



Cerran said:


> _*Not to mention you have automatic control which makes air adjustments for you.*_


_Only_ if heat demand _requests_ it, not because the firebox _requires_ it "_based on the burn stage of your wood_" (as you put it)... those are two very different things.
My previous (homemade) smoke dragon(s) didn't have any automatic air adjustment, but the circulation blower was automatic. They were a bit trickery to load and run... meaning the learning curve took a little longer and it was easier to make a mistake and overload, especially early in the season. Those used a flue damper for control... you opened it fully to load the thing (or flame bellowed out the door), and then you closed it based on expected heat demand/fuel load/ambient conditions. Once you caught-on, it became second nature... no big deal.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> _Only_ if heat demand _requests_ it, not because the firebox _requires_ it "_based on the burn stage of your wood_" (as you put it)... those are two very different things.
> My previous (homemade) smoke dragon(s) didn't have any automatic air adjustment, but the circulation blower was automatic. They were a bit trickery to load and run... meaning the learning curve took a little longer and it was easier to make a mistake and overload, especially early in the season. Those used a flue damper for control... you opened it fully to load the thing (or flame bellowed out the door), and then you closed it based on expected heat demand/fuel load/ambient conditions. Once you caught-on, it became second nature... no big deal.



Which is no different than changing the primary air control on a modern stove. There are stoves that have somewhat automatic control based on a set temp .



Whitespider said:


> Why doesn't it make sense?? That's silly?? The firebox is in the basement, I'm not always home, even if I'm home I'm not always in the house, and I turn in 'round 8:30... not haf'in to fiddle with it makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it makes one he!!-of a-lot of sense to me‼



So you're comparing a wood furnace to a room heater. That doesn't make sense. Have you tried one of the newer wood furnaces?



Whitespider said:


> If it's so damn "inaccurate", why doesn't my house vary in temperature no matter the weather??
> Like I said, if ya' have a clue, if ya' know what you're doin'...



Because you have gotten used to your setup and know what your house needs with good precision. It doesn't make the method you are using any more accurate. It's the difference between precision and accuracy.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

1project2many said:


> _*You're off the mark with the engine hp/fuel efficiency comments. I can give good of examples of low HP old engines... I can also give examples of how properly matching engine displacement and power range... Poor analogy.*_


Oh... stop it 
Don't over analyze... it ain't a poor analogy.
A 4-cyl Escort engine ain't gonna' pull my stock trailer. And with any engine, and all else remains the same, more fuel means more power.
But that wasn't my point... my point was the fuel to to power ratio ain't linear as power is increased.



1project2many said:


> _*Now that's just backward. You're saying that no matter how large the stove...*_


They only make 'em so large in the elitist configuration my friend... only so large.



1project2many said:


> _*FWIW there's no "fiddling" with either of my stoves.*_


Good‼
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> They only make 'em so large in the elitist configuration my friend... only so large.



Actually industrial energy systems using the same basic concepts of an EPA wood stove have been in use for more than 20 years and I've worked on units up to 150 MMBtu/hr. Like it or not, the technology is built on a sound basis from a combustion standpoint.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I don't adjust crap, 'cause there ain't crap to adjust


You have an electric control switching between smoldering and a forced draft wood incinerator. No wonder you have no coals. And you claim no adjustments? My stove does not require an automatic control system to make it work - in fact it works with no power at all, and in practice we rarely make an adjustment after the initial setting. None. So in fact your system requires continual active adjustment where mine does not. 

In smolder mode it will create plenty of particulates, sending energy up the stack in the form of carbon molecules. In forced draft you'll be sending lots of heat energy up the stack directly, but the total output will be high. 

All this time it turns out that you've been comparing secondary combustion wood stoves to your "smoke dragon" when it isn't even a wood stove at all, it is a forced draft wood furnace. I bet the energy output rate of that thing is double what your little stove could do even at maximum secondary combustion.

Essentially the entire conversation has been irrelevant.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*So you're comparing a wood furnace to a room heater. That doesn't make sense. Have you tried one of the newer wood furnaces?*_


I ain't tryin' to heat a _room_.. I'm heating a home.
If it don't burn on a coal grate, if the air don't come in under said grate, and if the ashes don't fall through said grate... I ain't interested in "trying" it (maybe if someone gave me one). Fool me once...



Chris-PA said:


> _*You have an electric control switching between smoldering and a forced draft wood incinerator.*_
> _*All this time it turns out that you've been comparing secondary combustion wood stoves to your "smoke dragon" when it isn't even a wood stove at all...*_


Don't act so incredulous... how could you not know what I'm talkin' 'bout?? How many friggin' threads have there been??
And so what?? It's a firebox ain't it?? A smoke dragon firebox.

Oh... and it don't "smolder"‼
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I ain't tryin' to heat a _room_.. I'm heating a home.
> If it don't burn on a coal grate, if the air don't come in under said grate, and if the ashes don't fall through said grate... I ain't interested in "trying" it (maybe if someone gave me one). Fool me once...



Which was my point, you are comparing something that was obviously ill suited to the application (your PE stove) from a sizing perspective to something completely different.

For the size application of a room heater, grates are not going to be a benefit and in fact will be a detriment to the type of combustion taking place. (for a reburn or cat wood stove)


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 9, 2014)

I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box... If I'm lucky and running Hedge, I might get about 4hrs. usually its 2-3 before the coals have settled down and aren't glowing as brightly. It's even less if it's windy outside.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box... If I'm lucky and running Hedge, I might get about 4hrs. usually its 2-3 before the coals have settled down and aren't glowing as brightly. It's even less if it's windy outside.



I regularly get 7-10 hour burn times with my Quad 3100i. Usable heat output is about 6-9 hours of that depending on the outside temp. It really sounds like your stove is undersized for your application if you're having that much trouble.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 9, 2014)

Well, it's the biggest one PE makes. And those burn times are either completely damped down or within an inch f it depending on the wood and it's air req't. There weren't many bigger options outside of a Mansfield Equinox.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Well, it's the biggest one PE makes. And those burn times are either completely damped down or within an inch f it depending on the wood and it's air req't. There weren't many bigger options outside of a Mansfield Equinox.



And you're not baking yourself out of your house? How big of a space are you trying to heat?


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Which was my point, you are comparing something that was obviously ill suited to the application (your PE stove) from a sizing perspective to something completely different.*_


Actually I'm not...
My previous "furnace" was a modified smoke dragon "stove"... basically, I built a plenum around it and forced air through it. It worked just fine to heat my home for years... it burned on a grate. I did the same modification with the PE and it failed miserably. The fireboxes were the same size (actually the PE was just a touch bigger), although different in shape... the smoke dragon was a little longer, but narrower. From a _size_ perspective they were as close to identical as two (different) stoves can be. Sure, my current "furnace" outperforms my old (converted) one... but my old converted one was 10-times more effective than the converted PE. My comparisons are based more in that than anything else.

And, by-the-way, I converted the PE back into a stove before moving it into the shop... it didn't change the burning characteristics one iota.



Locust Cutter said:


> _*I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box... If I'm lucky and running Hedge, I might get about 4hrs. usually its 2-3 before the coals have settled down and aren't glowing as brightly. It's even less if it's windy outside.*_


*L-O-L ‼*
It has to be at least 45° outside before I can get 3 good heating hours out'a mine... you're doin' better than I've ever got.
But mine ain't the biggest PE... there's one a little larger (that would be yours).
Heck, even at 40° it wastes more wood in coals thrown out than my current furnace burns‼
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Don't act so incredulous... how could you not know what I'm talkin' 'bout?? How many friggin' threads have there been??
> And so what?? It's a firebox ain't it?? A smoke dragon firebox.
> 
> Oh... and it don't "smolder"‼


Perhaps because once again you insist on using terms that already have meanings in your own unique way - in this case not a technical term but the slang "smoke dragon" which is not what you have. My brother in law has a pellet stove, which is also not a wood stove. My dad actually has a smoke dragon - it's an old wood stove with no secondary combustion system. It has no fan forcing air through the firebox. It has a heat output profile that rises, peaks and falls, like mine does but with a different shape without the secondary burn.

Your device has a fairly constant output rate until it runs out of wood, as there is a blower forcing air through the burning wood and an active control system that can do that for longer times as the wood load burns down. And in between the air is closed down, just like I could do with my stove if I didn't need the heat or care how much junk it put out.

All this complaining about coals in comparison to a stove type you don't even have, and using a fan forced system that cannot possibly accumulate coals as a reference. Simply nonsense. Why on earth you ever thought a stove could compare to a system with a blower forcing air through the fire is beyond me.

Comparing a secondary combustion stove to a forced draft furnace is not at all the same as comparing one to an earlier stove design. Having used a smoke dragon I often wondered why your experiences seemed so different from my revollection. It's because you were describing something completely different.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Actually I'm not...
> My previous "furnace" was a modified smoke dragon "stove"... basically, I built a plenum around it and forced air through it. It worked just fine to heat my home for years... it burned on a grate. I did the same modification with the PE and it failed miserably. The fireboxes were the same size (actually the PE was just a touch bigger), although different in shape... the smoke dragon was a little longer, but narrower. From a _size_ perspective they were as close to identical as two (different) stoves can be. Sure, my current "furnace" outperforms my old (converted) one... but my old converted one was 10-times more effective than the converted PE. My comparisons are based more in that than anything else.
> 
> And, by-the-way, I converted the PE back into a stove before moving it into the shop... it didn't change the burning characteristics one iota.



So in essence your complaint is that your PE stove didn't work for a purpose it wasn't intended for? Firebox size alone is not a good metric for comparing stoves, especially ones with different combustion technologies.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 9, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> Essentially the entire conversation has been irrelevant.



And BEAT TO DEATH! (where's that dead horse smilie we used to have?!) 



Locust Cutter said:


> I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box...



Lots. Heck, I can get 6-7 hrs usable heat out of my tiny lil 1.2 CF stove on Ash, Oak, whatever. Never fed 'er any Hedge...yet  Not sure how big your stove is but I bet it is bigger than mine so you should be able to get 8 hours easily unless your heat load is too high and you're running the crud out of it to keep up.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Second, I don't "damper down" my smoke dragon, I don't adjust anything.


So there is no damper on the intake of the draft blower? It can suck as much air as it wants through the blower? Man, the Yukon Big Jack (which is a VERY similar unit to yours) I had would have been a molten puddle if the intake was not damped down a lil. And if you "load it light" it just ran out of fuel in 2 hours. I gotta say I'm a bit intrigued by your SOP as my sister, who has my old Yukon, has not yet "dialed in" the day to day operation of it. It either is hot or cold in their house...running it the way I did only halfway worked for them.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Perhaps because once again you insist on using terms that already have meanings in your own unique way - in this case not a technical term but the slang "smoke dragon" which is not what you have.*_


Perhaps you should go back and read the thread when I got this furnace a little over a year ago. I'd never heard the term "smoke dragon" until I joined-up here. And it weren't me that labeled my furnace a "smoke dragon"... it was couple dozen or so members that were convinced I was gonna' cause the sky to fall 'cause I didn't get something with elitist technology. 
*I* didn't make up the stupid term, *I* didn't define its meaning, and *I* didn't label my furnace as one‼



Chris-PA said:


> _*Comparing a secondary combustion stove to a forced draft furnace is not at all the same as comparing one to an earlier stove design. Having used a smoke dragon I often wondered why your experiences seemed so different from my revollection. It's because you were describing something completely different.*_


The box I had before the PE was what you are (now) redefining(?) as a smoke dragon... and it weren't my first by any stretch‼



Cerran said:


> _*So in essence your complaint is that your PE stove didn't work for a purpose it wasn't intended for? Firebox size alone is not a good metric for comparing stoves, especially ones with different combustion technologies.*_


WTF ever... now were back to the excuses.
So I suppose there ain't any "furnaces" with secondary combustion?? Give me a break‼



Cerran said:


> _*It really sounds like your stove is undersized for your application if you're having that much trouble.*_


Boy... if I only had a nickle for every time I've read that excuse on this board.
Why is it so friggin' hard to believe that the elitist technology just flat ain't always the best choice for every application under all conditions??
Why is that so friggin' hard to believe??
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> The box I had before the PE was what you are (now) redefining(?) as a smoke dragon... and it weren't my first by any stretch‼


Did that system have any kind of active control system regulating air into the firebox or any forced air into the firebox?

Was that the system you could just "open the door every 6-12 hours (depending), toss some wood in, slam the door" and keep your house at a constant temp with no adjustments with a firebox no bigger than the Spectrum's? Or is that the new wood furnace that has continual automatic control?


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

brenndatomu,
If I'm rememberin' the settings correctly (I messed with it a bit before getting it where I wanted it), I adjusted the limit controller for the draft blower so it shuts down when air jacket temperature reaches 175°, and starts back up when it drops to 155°. That keeps the firebox from overheating... and drastically reduced fuel consumption when the t-stat is callin' for heat (cause the draft blower is cycling). Yeah, the draft blower has a swinging gate like thing on it, I've never used it, it's wide open. Actually, I've bumped so many times with the ash drawer it's bent and loose, just swings free... wouldn't stay closed if I wanted it to. I'm gonna' drill out the rivet and toss it one of these days.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Chris-PA,
I just explained that old one was a bit trickier to load and run in post #88... but, yeah, other than opening the flue damper to load the thing, I opened the door, loaded, and slammed the door. It had an adjustable combustion air intake on the door... but after I got it set where I wanted it, I never once touched it for years. Here, I'll reproduce what I posted...

_My previous (homemade) smoke dragon(s) didn't have any automatic air adjustment, but the circulation blower was automatic. They were a bit trickery to load and run... meaning the learning curve took a little longer and it was easier to make a mistake and overload, especially early in the season. Those used a flue damper for control... you opened it fully to load the thing (or flame bellowed out the door), and then you closed it based on expected heat demand/fuel load/ambient conditions. Once you caught-on, it became second nature... no big deal._
*


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 9, 2014)

Cerran said:


> *And you're not baking yourself out of your house*? How big of a space are you trying to heat?


Mainly I'm trying to heat a 14x24 room. All totaled, I'm trying to "warm" about 850-900sqft. We positioned the stove in a corner on a 45° out towards our 14' x 24' living room. We tiled in the corner from floor to ceiling going outward 8' West and South. The floor is also tiled all the way across the room (E-W) for additional heat mass and protection from the elements when bringing wood in, guarding against embers, etc. It has airflow exposure to around 850-900 sqft. Granted, its a 2-story house so heat is rising, but the total affected area (where the temp difference is noticeable when the stove is in use) is around 1400sqft, maybe. There's a fan in back of the unit which is used on low to help blow heat off of the tile into the room. The fan negatively affects the stove though as it cools the bottom of the box even more. And NO, it doesn't run us out unless ts shoulder season. The room its in is also insulated VERY well as that's the newest part of the house and was re-insulated/tyvec'ed, etc after a small tornado decided to partially destroy my siding on the West and North sides of my house...


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah, the draft blower has a swinging gate like thing on it, I've never used it, it's wide open. Actually, I've bumped so many times with the ash drawer it's bent and loose, just swings free... wouldn't stay closed if I wanted it to. I'm gonna' drill out the rivet and toss it one of these days.


Yeah, the one on my old Yukon was loose too. I drilled the rivet out and replaced it with a long screw/spring/wing-nut. That holds the door where you place it but allows it to "float" if bumped. 

Hmm, I may hafta think about puttin a temp limit switch on the draft blower for them....


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> It had an adjustable combustion air intake on the door... but after I got it set where I wanted it, I never once touched it for years.


Fixed air inlet and draft control through the burn, a firebox no bigger than the Spectrum, enough heat output to keep your place at a constant 70deg temperature in very cold weather, and 6-12hr burn times. Air inlet from under the fire through a grate. 

Magic.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 9, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Magic.*_


Naw... no magic... just load as needed... coals stayed screamin' hot, kept right on heatin', burned to ash and fell through the grate... just toss the next load on top of 'em.

OH... my current furnace has a flue damper also, but I never touch it because of the draft blower.
Last year after installing the furnace I got a fire goin', opened the door, closed the flue damper until I saw a bit of smoke exit the door, then slowly opened it until no smoke was exiting. I made a couple more minor adjustments to it over the next week or so... and that's where it's been set since before Thanksgiving 2013.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 9, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box... If I'm lucky and running Hedge, I might get about 4hrs. usually its 2-3 before the coals have settled down and aren't glowing as brightly. It's even less if it's windy outside.


My stove is in the basement, and I modified the ductwork of the defunct oil fired hot air system so I can use the blower to pull hot air off the top of the room and circulate it around the house. 

A thermostat turns on the blower at around 80. I build a good fire before bed, maybe 9:30 or so, and the blower runs until maybe 2 or 3 in the morning. When I get up there's enough hot coals to start the next fire easily. 

Early in the cycle during secondary burn that room can be 90 to 100deg. There's a lot of stone around the stove, and even once the secondary burn is winding down heat is coming back out. 

It's hard to say how many hours the burn is, as they have a long tail once the secondary is done. When I want to keep the heat output up through the tail I throw a tulip or ash split on top of the coals. 

It sure seems that you should get longer times of decent output with hedge.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 9, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> WTF ever... now were back to the excuses.
> So I suppose there ain't any "furnaces" with secondary combustion?? Give me a break‼



Which you haven't tried. 

What excuses? You're making claims that have no rational basis here. You modified a stove for a purpose for which it was never intended and complain that it didn't work. If you tried to tow your trailer with a European supercar and then complained how poorly it worked should people take your complaints seriously?

You're trying to compare a design with a forced draft fan to a design that was intended to have natural draft and then claiming the technology isn't all it's cracked up to be. It was common prior to the highly engineered designs to build a simple box and fire it really hard to get high output with little regard to efficiency which is basically what you are doing now. 



Whitespider said:


> Boy... if I only had a nickle for every time I've read that excuse on this board.
> Why is it so friggin' hard to believe that the elitist technology just flat ain't always the best choice for every application under all conditions??
> Why is that so friggin' hard to believe??



Because you never tried a stove/furnace with the right application for both technologies. Have you tried a modern wood furnace?

How many cords a year do you burn?


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 9, 2014)

I wonder if the difference in the amount of wood burned has anything to do with the dryness of the wood. I have heard a few people mention the older style stoves will burn wood that isn't dry enough to burn in epa cert stoves.
Testing some red oak, delivered to a neighbor as seasoned, showed it to be over 40 percent water.
I cut some red oak logs that had been laying, off the ground for 5 years, last week. They tested 63 percent water. I takes a lot of heat to drive the water out of firewood that isn't dry.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*You're trying to compare a design with a forced draft fan to a design that was intended to have natural draft and then claiming the technology isn't all it's cracked up to be.*_


No I'm not... you are.
I already told you most of the comparison was with the converted "stove" I had before... and neither it or the PE had forced air draft.
I also told you the PE was unconverted and is used as "intended" in the shop... it ain't shown any improvement, even with temperatures nearing 50°. I don't like the new technology... I think it's stupid (based on more than just my stove)... get over it.



Cerran said:


> _*It was common prior to the highly engineered designs to build a simple box and fire it really hard to get high output with little regard to efficiency which is basically what you are doing now.*_


Where do I get one of these crystal balls that allows you to see what someone else is doing half way across the country??

How many cord do I burn in a year?? What year?? Which appliance?? What kind of wood??
Let's see, last year was the first year with this furnace, and it was one of the coldest and longest in decades... if I remember correctly it was something in the neighborhood of 5½ or 6 cord (I think... some of it was standing-dead elm that went directly in the house unmeasured), and that also includes what the PE burned in the shop (probably 1½ cord).
The year before was cold and long also, and I was using the PE conversion... something just over 9 cord I believe.
The year before that was pretty mild, and it was the last year with the old converted smoke dragon stove... right at 3½ cord, maybe a touch over.
And the year before that (2010/2011) was cold and snowy... I remember because I didn't have any wood put up. I hadn't been burning for a couple of years because of some lung issues my daughter was having. It was that November of 2010 I joined this site. I spent every Saturday that entire winter cutting whatever I could get to in the deep snow, standing-dead or dead and down, and dragging it to the house. Hard to say for sure because I was burning it as fast as I was cuttin' it... and a lot of it was junky-punky. Just a wild-azz-guess... something between 5 and 7 cord... maybe.

Tell ya what... give me 2 or 3 years with this appliance to get some sort of average, and I'll be able to give you a much better answer. Although, this won't be a good year for gettin' much of a feel for it. I had a big dump truck load of firebox length firewood given to me with a little bit of everything in it... everything from Box Elder to punky maple. That's all I've been burning so far, and I just tossed it in the basement as I split it... tossed it in unmeasured. Honestly... knowing, or keeping track of _exactly_ how much I burn has never been a priority with me. I just try and make sure I have what looks like more than enough.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Oh... and this was the load of firewood given to me...


----------



## Cerran (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> No I'm not... you are.
> I already told you most of the comparison was with the converted "stove" I had before... and neither it or the PE had forced air draft.
> I also told you the PE was unconverted and is used as "intended" in the shop... it ain't shown any improvement, even with temperatures nearing 50°. I don't like the new technology... I think it's stupid (based on more than just my stove)... get over it.



Then either you're doing something wrong with the PE summit (Wood, setup, chimney) or something is wrong with the stove. Did you season the wood for the PE? If you didn't there is your problem right there.

What don't you like about the new technology? You say think it's stupid but you haven't given a solid reason for why.



Whitespider said:


> Where do I get one of these crystal balls that allows you to see what someone else is doing half way across the country??



Based on your description of how your stove is configured.


----------



## Ronaldo (Dec 10, 2014)

There are a few of these secondary combustion stoves out there that work well for their owners.......I have knowledge of a Pacific Energy Summit, Vogelzang Defender, Jotul ????on model (secondary comb. baffle and or tube design) and a Woodstock Soapstone (catilytic) that are all heating homes with out any of the troubles that have been stated here. These are all chainsaw or woodcutting friends of mine in my local area.

Before installing my Pacific Energy Super 27 (same firebox as the Spectrum that Whitespider loves to hate), I had an old school Blaze King (no ash pan with a front opening door that hinged down). I used that for a couple of years and started looking for something more efficient with a glass door ( love to see the fire). I had my purchase narrowed down to a Quadra Fire or the PE and chose the PE for price and several other features I liked better and payed around $1000 in the year 2000.

More facts for you:
With the new stove now I burn less wood, carry out far less ashes and check/clean chimney only once per year just to be on the safe side. The PE stove heats my entire 2000 sq.ft. house with no problem and no help from any other heat source. I load and let the stove get a good burn going, then damper down exactly like the owners manual explains. I get great overnight burns (8-10 hrs.) and have beautiful coals in the morning to get burning again. This is all in the same house, same chimney, same heat load etc. My new technology "EPA" "Elitist" stove is far and above better in every way over my old one.

Great heat---great efficiency---great looks (sits in the family room and we all love to watch the fire, its like moving the firepit indoors for the winter).

They may not be for everyone, but this is my experience and for 14 years now have been EXTREMELY satisfied and happy with my secondary combustion stove.


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Don't over analyze... it ain't a poor analogy.
> A 4-cyl Escort engine ain't gonna' pull my stock trailer. And with any engine, and all else remains the same, more fuel means more power.
> But that wasn't my point... my point was the fuel to to power ratio ain't linear as power is increased.



Sadly, I'm not. More power with less fuel using smaller engines is what I've done for much of a lifetime. There are threads as long as this one on automotive forums for BSFC and related topics.



> I'd like to know how people are getting 6-8+hr burn time with an EPA box...


The secondary burners don't do as well as cat stoves. The cat stove gasifies wood in the box and uses the reaction in the catalytic converter to produce most of the heat. If yours is a catalytic stove and it needs fuel more frequently than a similar model in another home, that seems to indicate your heating need is at the higher end of the stove's output.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Then either you're doing something wrong... or something is wrong with the stove. Did you season the wood... ?*_


Blind denial is amazing... 
Why is it so friggin' hard to believe that the elitist technology just flat ain't always the best choice for every application under all conditions??
Why is itt so friggin' hard to believe that there ain't any be-all-to-end-all... why is it so friggin' hard to believe not every latest 'n' greatest thing is "best" for every application??
Why ain't all ovens of microwave technology?? Microwave is more efficient??
Why is it, in this day 'n' age of cell phones and other forms of digital, instantaneous communications... I still sell and install dozens of analog business-band two-way radios and repeaters every year?? Heck, near all law enforcement and emergency responders ('round here) still rely on the same basic 90-year-old technology... and digital two-way has been available for years‼
Why ain't GPS technology eliminated the magnetic compass??
Do you remember the "new" Coke-Cola??
Do you have power disc brakes on your lawn tractor?? Power steering on your motorcycle??
Why ain't there a wind turbine and solar panels on the roof of every house?? And Geo-thermal under the yard (which is now most certainly AstroTurf)??
Does most of your *** still start via a pull cord?? Really??
Please don't tell me you're still using a *key* to unlock your house door?? I'll bet you even use kindling to start a fire also... geezzz‼
Do you still stop at the gas pump?? You are aware there's electric cars now... correct?? Well, no doubt, all of your internal combustion engines are at least capable of using E85 I'm sure??
Did you use a keyboard to make your last post?? What?‼? You do know you can just speak to the computer now??
By-the-way... are you lovin' that new 3-D printer??
No doubt you've installed a fire sprinkler system in your house, and an elevator... or at least an escalator?? C'mon man, they've been 'round for decades‼
Every appliance, everything plugged into your wall outlets is "Energy Star" rated??
All of your light switches have been replaced with motion sensors?? They haven't?? What??
You've purchased satellite radio for all your vehicles... and your home?? And please don't tell me your TV signal, telephone, internet, and whatnot still enters your home via a wire or cable.
Can you believe people still pay for a _*printed*_ newspaper?? Heck, I know people still purchasing postage stamps... can you believe it?? And on top of that that... they actually write checks, or even use _*cash*_‼
I actually saw a guy *shoveling* snow off his sidewalk the other day‼ (I think it was the same guy I saw _*raking*_ leaves a couple months ago.)

Should I go on??
*


----------



## slowp (Dec 10, 2014)

The big advantage of non fanned, non powered wood stoves--communist or not, is that when the power goes off, I don't have to go out and fiddle with a generator to keep the house warm. 

I don't get this coals are bad argument. I always thought that coals are what you hoped you had in the morning, because they made getting the wood stove going in the morning easier. That was when I had a pre elitist stove, an Earth Stove, in a cold climate. You loaded it up, went to bed, and hoped for coals in the morning so there would be no kindling and newspaper needed. The climate I live in now is not as severe, although burning season can be longer.

Was I wrong? One hopes for ashes in the morning? Or fire still flaming away?


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

1project2many said:


> Sadly, I'm not. More power with less fuel using smaller engines is what I've done for much of a lifetime. There are threads as long as this one on automotive forums for BSFC and related topics.
> 
> 
> The secondary burners don't do as well as cat stoves. The cat stove gasifies wood in the box and uses the reaction in the catalytic converter to produce most of the heat. If yours is a catalytic stove and it needs fuel more frequently than a similar model in another home, that seems to indicate your heating need is at the higher end of the stove's output.


Mine isn't a cat stove. I came close to buying a CAT stove after seeing my friend's VC Encore in action. It WILL hold a fire for 6-8 hours on a load, or 8-10 on a full load of Hedge. I just didn't want to have to deal with cleaning/replacing cats. I'm glad that the P.E. stove works well for the other guy and mine works really well sometimes, but other times, not so much.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

slowp said:


> The big advantage of non fanned, non powered wood stoves--communist or not, is that when the power goes off, I don't have to go out and fiddle with a generator to keep the house warm.
> 
> I don't get this coals are bad argument. I always thought that coals are what you hoped you had in the morning, because they made getting the wood stove going in the morning easier. That was when I had a pre elitist stove, an Earth Stove, in a cold climate. You loaded it up, went to bed, and hoped for coals in the morning so there would be no kindling and newspaper needed. The climate I live in now is not as severe, although burning season can be longer.
> 
> Was I wrong? *One hopes for ashes in the morning? Or fire still flaming away*?



Neither actually. Coals are a blessing in the am to wake up to. What Spider and I are miffed by is that the PE fireboxes when burned constantly build up an entire box full of coals in short order (compared to older stoves). When this happens you lose 1/2 - 2/3 of your effective heat output. You have to options at this point. Either a: let the coals burn down to ashes, or b: shovel out hot burning coals in order to make room for new logs and actual usable heat output. I love having a stove which requires no electricity. I just don't like carrying live coals out of the house in order to continue burning...


----------



## slowp (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Neither actually. Coals are a blessing in the am to wake up to. What Spider and I are miffed by is that the PE fireboxes when burned constantly build up an entire box full of coals in short order (compared to older stoves). When this happens you lose 1/2 - 2/3 of your effective heat output. You have to options at this point. Either a: let the coals burn down to ashes, or b: shovel out hot burning coals in order to make room for new logs and actual usable heat output. I love having a stove which requires no electricity. I just don't like carrying live coals out of the house in order to continue burning...



Maybe it is a hardwood thing? I don't have that happening here. The only hardwoods I burn are our native maple and red alder. I mix that with Doug-fir, which is the favorite wood to burn in these parts.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

slowp said:


> _*The big advantage of non fanned, non powered wood stoves... when the power goes off, I don't have to go out and fiddle with a generator... *_
> _*You loaded it up, went to bed, and hoped for coals in the morning so there would be no kindling and newspaper needed.*_


I wouldn't need a generator either... I built a plenum on top of the air jacket that connects into the ducting. With the return air return system, convection will carry the heat up into living space and cold air to the furnace. It would just take a bit longer to _raise_ the temperature of the house... pretty much the same as using a stove in the basement.

Still, I have a generator for power outages... and I'd fire it up anyway if the power goes out. I mean... there's a he!!-of-a-lot more than the furnace to consider when the power goes out.

Newspaper and kindling?? 
This is the 21st century, ya' know?? Who-the-he!! still uses newspaper and kindling?? Are you also rubbin' two sticks together?? 
*


----------



## Ambull01 (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I wouldn't need a generator either... I built a plenum on top of the air jacket that connects into the ducting. With the return air return system, convection will carry the heat up into living space and cold air to the furnace. It would just take a bit longer to _raise_ the temperature of the house... pretty much the same as using a stove in the basement.
> 
> Still, I have a generator for power outages... and I'd fire it up anyway if the power goes out. I mean... there's a he!!-of-a-lot more than the furnace to consider when the power goes out.
> 
> ...



What do you use to start a fire? Super Cedars?


----------



## 513yj (Dec 10, 2014)

slowp said:


> I don't get this coals are bad argument. I always thought that coals are what you hoped you had in the morning, because they made getting the wood stove going in the morning easier. That was when I had a pre elitist stove, an Earth Stove, in a cold climate. You loaded it up, went to bed, and hoped for coals in the morning so there would be no kindling and newspaper needed. The climate I live in now is not as severe, although burning season can be longer.
> 
> Was I wrong? One hopes for ashes in the morning? Or fire still flaming away?



I love coals in the morning to get my fire going but they don't do what I want when I'm awake and it's really cold out. Coals do not keep the temperature in my house where I want it when it's -35 to -40 outside not counting the wind like it was last winter. But, you probably don't get the temps over there like we do here. As I posted last winter I have to stir and babysit the coals like a drunken Toronto mayor in order to keep it 70* inside when it's -20 and colder outside.


----------



## zogger (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Neither actually. Coals are a blessing in the am to wake up to. What Spider and I are miffed by is that the PE fireboxes when burned constantly build up an entire box full of coals in short order (compared to older stoves). When this happens you lose 1/2 - 2/3 of your effective heat output. You have to options at this point. Either a: let the coals burn down to ashes, or b: shovel out hot burning coals in order to make room for new logs and actual usable heat output. I love having a stove which requires no electricity. I just don't like carrying live coals out of the house in order to continue burning...



Well, there's coals, then just ashes. using a scoop made to sift the ashes but retain the coals, you could have two containers, one for the real ash, the other for coals, then throw the coals back on some fresh splits? 

Now, I don't know if they make this thing for woodstoves, but something that looks and works like a kitty litter scoop, but designed for hot wood coals. I know grates are *supposed* to do that. If they don't, maybe the spacing is too wide.

Other than that, no idea, my dragon just builds up stuff in the bottom, stir it around, get the coals back to the top, let it burn another hour, and then shovel it out every few days or as needed. In the morning if not going to clean it out, I get any unburnt stuff back up to the top, then lay on little stuff and maybe some cardboard, back to burning within minutes.

I don't expect to get an all night hot full burn, but I always can get enough hot coals remaining to restart it easily. Sometimes I will throw another chunk in in the middle of the night, sometimes not, usually only when it is, for here, quite cold, will I do that, and/or open the top lid and fit in something big that barely fits..


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Ambull01 said:


> _*What do you use to start a fire? Super Cedars?*_


Well, first of all, except for a few early season fires, I rarely haf'ta "_start_" a fire in the furnace... there's near always enough coals to just toss some wood in the box.
But when I do "_start_" a fire (and I've posted this several times)... I load the box with full-size splits, grab a golf ball size tuft of clothes dryer lint (wife shoves it in a coffee can), poke it between a couple bottom splits, squirt with a tablespoon or so of liquid fire accelerant (diesel, fuel oil, charcoal fluid, kerosene, whatever), flick the Bic (I use the long "grill lighter" Bic), and shut the door. The lint acts like a wick, burns long and hot. That procedure has worked with every wood-fired appliance I've ever used. No fuss, no muss, no kindling, no paper, no screwin' 'round, no time involved... KISS ‼



513yj said:


> _*...I have to stir and babysit the coals like a drunken Toronto mayor...*_


Been there, done that, it sucks... never again, ever‼
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Blind denial is amazing...
> Why is it so friggin' hard to believe that the elitist technology just flat ain't always the best choice for every application under all conditions??
> Why is itt so friggin' hard to believe that there ain't any be-all-to-end-all... why is it so friggin' hard to believe not every latest 'n' greatest thing is "best" for every application??
> Why ain't all ovens of microwave technology?? Microwave is more efficient??
> ...



Nice deflection. Did you season the wood or not?

The only time I could see the older stoves being better is if you wanted to burn green wood which you aren't supposed to do anyway.

Your analogies are flawed, it would be like using carburetors when fuel injection is available for a typical day to day application which is what this is.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 10, 2014)

I use newspapers & kindling. Gotta dispose of the newspapers somehow anyway.

I also light a new fire every day.

There's a lot of cross-speaking going on in this thread, comparing apples to oranges all over the place. Smoker furnace vs. elitist stove, bad smoker vs. good elitist, bad elitist vs. good smoker. Pretty hard to compare a furnace to a stove to start with, or a well designed smoker to a poorly designed elitist.

I've got a gasifying boiler. (Elitist?). It replaced a smoker boiler (wood/oil combo) 2 1/2 years ago. There is no comparison in the heat output between them, in both how efficient they burn and how much heat they get out of that before it hits the chimney. I used to have to clean the chimney 4 times a year, tend the boiler every 2-3 hours, haul out lots of hot coals on the real cold days, and handle more wood. And the oil kicked in once in a while. Now, I haven't cleaned my chimney since the new one was fired up, I only have a fire actually burning between 6 & 12 hours a day (12 is the very coldest winter days), no coals to deal with (they all burn up), burn less wood, and the house is a lot warmer. And we don't have an oil tank any more. The old one didn't have an output rating on the wood side - but I would confidently estimate it to be half of the new one.

That's my old tech smoker vs. new tech elitist experience - I wouldn't go back to the old tech for anything, even if I do have to make a new fire every day. But it's not a stove, one size does not fit all, and situations & experiences vary - so I won't attempt to convince someone that they're wrong about theirs.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*Nice deflection. Did you season the wood or not?*_


There ain't no deflection here... there's been at least a dozen threads on my "stovace" (as it was nicknamed) over the last couple years. All of your questions have been asked and answered at least twice, if not a dozen times (plus several you ain't got to yet). We've been through all of your suggestions and diagnosis at least twice, if not a dozen times (plus several you ain't got to yet). Just ask brenndatomu, zogger, and several other members I could mention, they've been in on every thread one way or another.

I would suggest you do a search for "stovace" and bring yourself up to speed.

But to answer your question... yes, the wood was 2 and 3 year seasoned... the stuff I'm burning in it out in the shop now is 5 years seasoned.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 10, 2014)

513yj said:


> I love coals in the morning to get my fire going but they don't do what I want when I'm awake and it's really cold out. Coals do not keep the temperature in my house where I want it when it' -35 to -40 outside not counting the wind like it was last winter. But, you probably don't get the temps over there like we do here. As I posted last winter I have to stir and babysit the coals like a drunken Toronto mayor in order to keep it 70* inside when it's -20 and colder outside.


A secondary burn stove has a heat output profile that peaks towards the first part of the cycle while the secondaries are burning and then tails off as the volatile compounds are cooked off. Without the secondary combustion much of that energy would have gone up the stack in the form of carbon bonds with other elements, and the heat output rate would be lower for a stove of similar size, but instead it is released into the stove where it can be transferred into the living space. How long the tail end of the burn lasts depends on many things, like what wood you burn, how it is arranged in the firebox, how far open the damper is, stove design etc.

I think that the problem is that stove manufacturers quote _*peak *_outputs which (if they are even truthful at all) reflect the peak during secondary burn, which is much higher than a traditional stove. Then after the secondary burn the output is much lower. So these stoves have a greater difference between peak and average output, so if you go by the peak then the stove may be too small. Then if it is -35 out and you need a greater average output rate, waiting for the coals to burn will be a problem. That's not a stove design problem, it is primarily an application problem because the appliance cannot generate the average output rate needed.

What would be the solution? Burn wood faster, leave no coals and reload more often. There's no free ride. I suppose if you could switch to a bottom flow air intake after secondary burn is finished that would help keep the output higher and prevent the build up of coals. My stove effectively does this if I open the primary inlet before it is a solid bed of coals and have arranged the wood properly (end on to the door at the bottom).


----------



## nathon918 (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> There ain't no deflection here... there's been at least a dozen threads on my "stovace" (as it was nicknamed) over the last couple years. All of your questions have been asked and answered at least twice, if not a dozen times (plus several you ain't got to yet). We've been through all of your suggestions and diagnosis at least twice, if not a dozen times (plus several you ain't got to yet). Just ask brenndatomu, zogger, and several other members I could mention, they've been in on every thread one way or another.
> 
> I would suggest you do a search for "stovace" and bring yourself up to speed.
> 
> ...


must have used a moisture meter...no?.........


----------



## slowp (Dec 10, 2014)

You ridicule starting a fire with newpaper and kindling? Getting desperate? Newspaper is free for the taking, kindling needs no explanation. No spending money on whatever you squirt in there, and I don't have to deal with dryer lint. But, whatever...things must be boring around there.

I'm letting the stove go out right now. It's too warm to have a fire. When I need to, I'll get out the primitive newspaper, which will be in the Post Office and grocery store today--free for the taking, and sigh, thinking what an inferior a method I use. 

Back to hot tub cleaning. We've got a little weather thing coming this way and I might need the water. No generator needed.


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Neither actually. Coals are a blessing in the am to wake up to. What Spider and I are miffed by is that the PE fireboxes when burned constantly build up an entire box full of coals in short order (compared to older stoves). When this happens you lose 1/2 - 2/3 of your effective heat output. You have to options at this point. Either a: let the coals burn down to ashes, or b: shovel out hot burning coals in order to make room for new logs and actual usable heat output. I love having a stove which requires no electricity. I just don't like carrying live coals out of the house in order to continue burning...



Hmmm... I don't have this problem. At least not in the house stove. That stove provides more than enough heat for the house so when secondary stops and coals are present in any quantity we're usually good for a bit.

Coals burn at a greater temperature than the light gases that come out during reburn but if you can't get enough air to the fuel you're not going to get rapid combustion. The barn stove may consistently exhibit this problem... we'll see. As I said, right now I add Poplar or Basswood to the top of the coals and go for full on secondary burning and that seems to take the coals down fairly quickly. I can say the house stove, an Englander, seems to do a better job of providing air to the coals at the bottom of the stove than the barn stove. Rake them to the front, open the air control about 1/2 way, watch them glow brightly. Airflow inside the barn stove (brand sold by Lowes?) is different, for certain.

And yes, this anecdotal evidence does suggest to me that running some of these stoves at max heat output may lead to problems.




zogger said:


> Well, there's coals, then just ashes. using a scoop made to sift the ashes but retain the coals, you could have two containers, one for the real ash, the other for coals, then throw the coals back on some fresh splits?
> 
> Now, I don't know if they make this thing for woodstoves, but something that looks and works like a kitty litter scoop, but designed for hot wood coals. I know grates are *supposed* to do that. If they don't, maybe the spacing is too wide.



I built one using stainless steel rod, some stainless sheet, and 1/4 screen. It's about the size of a house dustpan. I'll try to snap a picture this evening if there's any interest.


----------



## Ambull01 (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Well, first of all, except for a few early season fires, I rarely haf'ta "_start_" a fire in the furnace... there's near always enough coals to just toss some wood in the box.
> But when I do "_start_" a fire (and I've posted this several times)... I load the box with full-size splits, grab a golf ball size tuft of clothes dryer lint (wife shoves it in a coffee can), poke it between a couple bottom splits, squirt with a tablespoon or so of liquid fire accelerant (diesel, fuel oil, charcoal fluid, kerosene, whatever), flick the Bic (I use the long "grill lighter" Bic), and shut the door. The lint acts like a wick, burns long and hot. That procedure has worked with every wood-fired appliance I've ever used. No fuss, no muss, no kindling, no paper, no screwin' 'round, no time involved... KISS ‼
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, thought you had some super high tech way to keep in step with the 21st century. I'll have to try dryer lint.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 10, 2014)

Corporations spend millions or billions of dollars a year to print and send me loads of paper crap that I never read. Why would I look further? With wood properly arranged for the particular stove (the little one upstairs needs something quite different from the other one, and it took my a while to figure that out) it only takes a minute or two to re-kindle the fire. Especially if there are still coals. 

And with a small bellows I often don't need a lighter at all.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 10, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> I suppose if you could switch to a bottom flow air intake after secondary burn is finished that would help keep the output higher and prevent the build up of coals.



My sentiment exactly.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

slowp said:


> Maybe it is a hardwood thing? I don't have that happening here. The only hardwoods I burn are our native maple and red alder. I mix that with Doug-fir, which is the favorite wood to burn in these parts.


I think there's some merit to that statement. Burning pure Hedge, my stove doesn't do very well. If I mix in some Cedar, Pine, Ash or Silver Maple with the Hedge, it does a lot better. I think it has to do with airflow. A bottom feed after the secondary shutoff would be fantastic.



zogger said:


> Well, there's coals, then just ashes. using a scoop made to sift the ashes but retain the coals, you could have two containers, one for the real ash, the other for coals, then throw the coals back on some fresh splits?
> 
> Now, I don't know if they make this thing for woodstoves, but something that looks and works like a kitty litter scoop, but designed for hot wood coals. I know grates are *supposed* to do that. If they don't, maybe the spacing is too wide.
> 
> ...



Having useful coals in the morning isn't a problem. There are sometimes weeks where the firebox never gets cold (even if the coals go out and I clean it out to re-light it). When I say the firebox gets full, I mean 6-11" depth of live, glowing coals across the entire firebox. Factoring in the baffle height, that effectively eliminates feed any more wood in. The stove is obviously throwing heat at this point, but is a lot less than when active primary and secondary combustion is taking place.


----------



## zogger (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I think there's some merit to that statement. Burning pure Hedge, my stove doesn't do very well. If I mix in some Cedar, Pine, Ash or Silver Maple with the Hedge, it does a lot better. I think it has to do with airflow. A bottom feed after the secondary shutoff would be fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Having useful coals in the morning isn't a problem. There are sometimes weeks where the firebox never gets cold (even if the coals go out and I clean it out to re-light it). When I say the firebox gets full, I mean 6-11" depth of live, glowing coals across the entire firebox. Factoring in the baffle height, that effectively eliminates feed any more wood in. The stove is obviously throwing heat at this point, but is a lot less than when active primary and secondary combustion is taking place.



Can you give it more air right there at the coal level or under them? I just have front air, basic screw in and out plate. If I rake the big coals right in front of that air and open it up, them suckers catch again and burn down fast, usually within an hour, then I shovel it out.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I think there's some merit to that statement. Burning pure Hedge, my stove doesn't do very well. If I mix in some Cedar, Pine, Ash or Silver Maple with the Hedge, it does a lot better. I think it has to do with airflow. A bottom feed after the secondary shutoff would be fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Having useful coals in the morning isn't a problem. There are sometimes weeks where the firebox never gets cold (even if the coals go out and I clean it out to re-light it). When I say the firebox gets full, I mean 6-11" depth of live, glowing coals across the entire firebox. Factoring in the baffle height, that effectively eliminates feed any more wood in. The stove is obviously throwing heat at this point, but is a lot less than when active primary and secondary combustion is taking place.



Makes me wonder if it's how the PE injects air into the firebox. When you guys load your PE are you loading it with wood front to back or side to side?


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

I don't know of any airflow port in the bottom, outside of the ash cleanout trap. Occasionally I will use that to help burn the coals down a bit. I normally load front to back ans it seems to burn better than side to side.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*When you guys load your PE are you loading it with wood front to back or side to side?*_


Ummm.... just so we're in understanding... my PE loads so the ends of the splits are facing the door. Is that what you call front to back?? Or side to side??
PE says up to 18 inch... but I can get 20 inch in there if'n I haf'ta.
*


----------



## olyman (Dec 10, 2014)

woodchuck357 said:


> A friend bought a "custom" knife for which he paid nearly 500 clams, it has sharp corners that make using it rough on the hand and doesn't hold an edge for crap, but to hear him tell it there is no better knife in the world.
> Some of that comes into play when folks talk about their stoves. Something they spent big bucks on HAS to be better.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> _*Having useful coals in the morning isn't a problem. There are sometimes weeks where the firebox never gets cold (even if the coals go out and I clean it out to re-light it).*_ _*When I say the firebox gets full, I mean 6-11" depth...*_


Mine's been so full they fall out when ya' open the door 

Once those coals ash-over, very little air can get to 'em... the heat output virtually ends. If a' don't keep stirring 'em every 10 minutes or so, they just die out and ya' end up shoveling a bucket load of charcoal chunks out the next day. And stirring 'em just mixes 'em with ash, which makes it even harder to burn 'em up. It's a lose-lose proposition... either freeze your azz off while you're screwin' 'round for 3 hours trying to burn the coals up, or just bite the bullet and toss out a bucket load of unburnt fuel. I got sick of screwin' 'round... I just toss the coals out.

By-the-way... the problem ain't unique to PE. I know of 4 other elitist stoves, all from different manufacturers, that do the same damn thing... and the colder it is outside, the worse the problem gets. (Although, just goin' on posts from this board over the last couple years, PE seems to be a bit more prone to such problems.)
*


----------



## zogger (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Mine's been so full they fall out when ya' open the door
> 
> Once those coals ash-over, very little air can get to 'em... the heat output virtually ends. If a' don't keep stirring 'em every 10 minutes or so, they just die out and ya' end up shoveling a bucket load of charcoal chunks out the next day. And stirring 'em just mixes 'em with ash, which makes it even harder to burn 'em up. It's a lose-lose proposition... either freeze your azz off while you're screwin' 'round for 3 hours trying to burn the coals up, or just bite the bullet and toss out a bucket load of unburnt fuel. I got sick of screwin' 'round... I just toss the coals out.
> 
> ...



How about adding forced air induction down at the coal level, some sort of blower like a guy would use for..a forge, something like that? Then just flick it on as needed. Might could drop that three hours to ten or fifteen minutes and get some more heat out of the thing at the same time.

Ok, another experiment, open it up, staring at the heap of barely burning coals, shove some thin..I said thin, as in 3/4-1 inch max a side...super dry pine kindling directly through the heap, several of them, different areas, skewer it. I have found pine helps a lot to make recalcitrant hardwoods behave better.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

zogger said:


> _*How about adding forced air induction down at the coal level, some sort of blower like a guy would use for..a forge, something like that?*_


If you think back zogger, I tried something sort'a like that.

At the bottom front is a small "boost air" hole, which is distributed through a manifold thingy... it's designed to supply a little air at floor level during start-up (because EPA tests require the door be closed shortly after lighting). I drilled more boost air holes... first just a couple, then more, then more, etc. It didn't change a thing until I removed the firebrick from the floor and installed a coal grate an inch or so off the bottom. Man, that thing worked awesome with the extra floor air and grate... except, that inch under the grate would fill up with ash in a single loading. Cleaning out the ashes was a royal friggin' pain; ya' had to lift out the grate, which would only fit through the door at an angle... and ya' had to do it after every burn cycle (meaning ya' pretty much had to let the fire go out). And trying to raise the grate to a reasonable level reduced firebox capacity way too much... I ended up pluggin' the holes and reinstalling the floor brick.

I thought about cuttin' the floor out, welding in an ash collection cavity, and installing the grate permanently... but that would have meant a total re-engineering of the whole stove. All three air intakes... primary, secondary, and boost... are under the floor, and so are the doors and control linkage (run by a single lever on the front beside the door). Primary and boost air use the same internal passage channel (making forced air problematic), secondary has its own. Heck, it would have been easier to build a new box from scratch.

That experiment confirmed something (to me anyway). Burning on a grate, with at least _some_ combustion air fed under it was way, way, way better... the difference was friggin' amazing. And I still had good secondary combustion‼ No doubt it would have failed the EPA tests configured like that... but it sure worked a ton better‼ Way more heat for way longer and no coal build up (until ashes filled the area under the grate).

Like I said in a previous post in this thread... elitist stoves are designed to pass EPA testing, they ain't designed to be "better". I'm sure the manufacturers do the best they can within the "regulatory limits", but the first and foremost consideration _has_ to be passing the EPA testing or your product is rejected... anything else _has_ to come a distant second. Those new proposed regulations that likely will be approved sometime early next year are gonna' make it interesting, and problems such as I (and a few others) have had will become a lot more commonplace... mark my words‼ Mark my words‼
*


----------



## zogger (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> If you think back zogger, I tried something sort'a like that.
> 
> At the bottom front is a small "boost air" hole, which is distributed through a manifold thingy... it's designed to supply a little air at floor level during start-up (because EPA tests require the door be closed shortly after lighting). I drilled more boost air holes... first just a couple, then more, then more, etc. It didn't change a thing until I removed the firebrick from the floor and installed a coal grate an inch or so off the bottom. Man, that thing worked awesome with the extra floor air and grate... except, that inch under the grate would fill up with ash in a single loading. Cleaning out the ashes was a royal friggin' pain; ya' had to lift out the grate, which would only fit through the door at an angle... and ya' had to do it after every burn cycle (meaning ya' pretty much had to let the fire go out). And trying to raise the grate to a reasonable level reduced firebox capacity way too much... I ended up pluggin' the holes and reinstalling the floor brick.
> 
> ...



something like the secondary tubes with air holes, but at the bottom, coals sitting on top, routed to one of those holes you made, with a blower (important part there), which should keep the ashes out enough to keep the coals burning down.

I still think the thin pine splits will work as the easiest/fastest thing to try, at least to some degree. Pine burns pretty well, no coals really. Just burns up like thick paper.

edit: to avoid psychological cooties, because I know you like to start or kindle a fire with accelerant, don't call the thin pine splits kindling, refer to them as "endlings" used to end the old fire to begin anew.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

I think I need to just install and OWB and keep the PE (or something like it) for ambiance and the joy of seeing an active fire.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 10, 2014)

Burning porous soft wood definitely helps oxygenate hthe fire a bit and burn more completely. I don't think the EPA had Locust and Hedge in mind as stove fuels...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 10, 2014)

I guess you'd haf'ta see the stove zogger, those extra "boost" holes were drilled into the internal passage that also supplies primary air. There ain't any way to "route" an air tube to a blower without destroying the existing air supply routing. Like I said... a total re-engineering.

I tried the "_thin pine splits_" thing... it was suggested by several. It was only marginally effective at best... and is just more screwin' 'round. You need to understand something... when I'm stirring the coal bed to get it burning or shoveling it out, I'll often find partially burned and charred full length splits under them. The irritation factor is unbelievable.



Locust Cutter said:


> _*I think I need to just install and OWB...*_


He!! No ‼
I ain't goin' outside to load the box... screw that‼
No, the current forced-air furnace is awesome... and, if'n I want, I can load it naked without gettin' goose bumps 
But... what ever floats _your_ boat...
*


----------



## zogger (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I guess you'd haf'ta see the stove zogger, those extra "boost" holes were drilled into the internal passage that also supplies primary air. There ain't any way to "route" an air tube to a blower without destroying the existing air supply routing. Like I said... a total re-engineering.
> 
> I tried the "_thin pine splits_" thing... it was suggested by several. It was only marginally effective at best... and is just more screwin' 'round. You need to understand something... when I'm stirring the coal bed to get it burning or shoveling it out, I'll often find partially burned and charred full length splits under them. The irritation factor is unbelievable.
> 
> ...



Oh well...maybe if you get an invite to join the Stonecutters, they can steer you to a *real* leet stove, something like a blaze king

Hey, ever try just a few real small pieces of coal in the bottom? small pieces and not many, not sure how that stuff is sold or graded...Throw the wood on top, maybe the coal would keep it burning longer plus keep throwing heat as the charcoal lumps finish burning

After that, running out of ideers. Last one...

Double, or make it a triple, barrel stove.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 10, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> At the bottom front is a small "boost air" hole, which is distributed through a manifold thingy..


Unlike your spectrum, my Magnolia has no primary air inlet under the door. There is only one air inlet, at the bottom rear, flowing up a tube to the air manifold. At the front of the manifold is an extension that crosses the flue outlet, and serves as the air wash. A single control regulates all of it. 

If I open it up a bit there is still plenty of air dropping down the past the door and sweeping in under the fire to prevent much coal formation. If it has built up coals a couple of small splits an opening the inlet more than usual will burn them up. 

I load the firebox with the lowest level end-on to the door, and the next row cross-wise to the door. Air wash flows under, through and up, and secondary air flows down from above. Because both are throttled they don't get out of proportion.


----------



## Eric Modell (Dec 10, 2014)

It looks like Spider needs a stove with Bias ply tires and a carburetor!!!!


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 10, 2014)

Eric Modell said:


> It looks like Spider needs a stove with Bias ply tires and a carburetor!!!!


Carbureted engine can run good on wood gas too, hmm....carbureted stove... off to my workshop! mwahhahaha!


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 11, 2014)

brenndatomu said:


> Carbureted engine can run good on wood gas too, hmm....carbureted stove... off to my workshop! mwahhahaha!


That's secondary burn!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Carburetor?? Fuel injection?? I just ain't seeing either 
A carburetor mixes air with raw fuel _before_ it is drawn into the combustion chamber...
Fuel injection mixes raw fuel with air _before_ it is drawn into the combustion chamber...
(Yeah, I know, the above is an over-simplification.)

I relate elitist stove technology closer to the early emission control systems.
Basically, a primitive exhaust gas recirculation system with air pump... and those systems were complete crap 
(Hey... you guys opened this door  )
*


----------



## slowp (Dec 11, 2014)

My grateless, powerless elitist communist feminist stove is roaring away after I started it with newspaper and kindling. Don't know what I did wrong......


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

slowp said:


> _*Don't know what I did wrong...*_


I do 
*


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> View attachment 385636






Cerran said:


> Then either you're doing something wrong with the PE summit (Wood, setup, chimney) or something is wrong with the stove. Did you season the wood for the PE? If you didn't there is your problem right there.




Likely he's doing something..............Likely more than one! LOL!

His mountain of wood is never covered so likely it's not seasoned enough for a modern high efficiency wood stove. He found that out but of course it's not the wood, it's the high efficiency stove.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Seriously guys... c'mon, spill it... where do I get one of those crystal balls that allows me to see what's happening on the other side of the country?? I thought we were all friends here... and here to share information... c'mon, spill it, where do I get one??
*


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Seriously guys... c'mon, spill it... where do I get one of those crystal balls that allows me to see what's happening on the other side of the country?? I thought we were all friends here... and here to share information... c'mon, spill it, where do I get one??
> *



No crystal ball needed to see what you've done wrong Spider. 

You've posted it up and have had it pointed out to you repeatedly.


----------



## slowp (Dec 11, 2014)

Yup, that's another thing I do wrong. I cover my seasoning wood and then it goes in a woodshed the next year. That might be why my elitist stove doesn't perform to Spider expectations.


----------



## Davej_07 (Dec 11, 2014)

It's official.......this thread has finally made my head hurt


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Seriously guys... c'mon, spill it... where do I get one of those crystal balls that allows me to see what's happening on the other side of the country??


What, you don't have one?



Like the secondary burn stoves, it probably wouldn't work for you anyway!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Del_ said:


> _*No crystal ball...*_


OH... damn... here I thought there was a crystal ball, when all along it was nothing but conjecture fueled by personal bias (i.e., self-serving bu!!$h!tt).
Oh well... I never was one to believe in gadget magic anyway.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

I was thinking about the coaling issue again, and I have a feeling it may have a lot to do with how you stack the wood in the firebox. I asked about this once before and found that I stack mine differently than most. I put the lowest row end-on to the door, and then next row perpendicular on top. I make sure to leave a gap between all splits on a row. This way air can flow down the door glass, in underneath the stack and does not get blocked off going up through the stack. I noticed early on that it was very hard to start and to get a hot fire if the bottom row of splits were stacked perpendicular to the door, or if both rows were oriented the same way. Then logs would tend to fall together and seal off the flow paths.

Anyway, it might be worth a try.


----------



## blacklocst (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Seriously guys... c'mon, spill it... where do I get one of those crystal balls that allows me to see what's happening on the other side of the country?? I thought we were all friends here... and c'mon, spill it, where do I get one??
> *


Same isle as the moisture meters.


----------



## zogger (Dec 11, 2014)

Hmm..I have no set technique for placing wood in the smogger, it is completely random, criss cross, whatever. I also never pack it as full as possible. 

Perhaps that is why I don't get terrible coaling and what I do get is easy to deal with, but I don't know either, not running this thing at 20 below either.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 11, 2014)

Some units make coals, some don't - not matter how you change up procedures.

(Softwood vs. hardwood, likely a difference yes).

My old boiler would make coals like no tomorrow - if it was actually cold out I had two choices, shovel out hot coals & reload, or let the oil burner take over for a while.


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> Some units make coals, some don't - not matter how you change up procedures.
> 
> (Softwood vs. hardwood, likely a difference yes).
> 
> My old boiler would make coals like no tomorrow - if it was actually cold out I had two choices, shovel out hot coals & reload, or let the oil burner take over for a while.



Splits of softwoods like pine and fir that don't make much coal placed on top of a large bed of coals will help to burn down that bed of coals.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 11, 2014)

I tried that too. All that seemed to happen is the softwood burned to ash, and the ash smothered the coals.

I could get the coals to burn down, with time & effort - stir them up & re-pile in front of the loading door every hour. But that took a few hours, by the end of which the house had gotten considerably colder. Part of the problem is that it was a boiler, and the return from the system entered under the firebox thereby liquid cooling the bottom of it. Right under the coals I was trying to get to burn.

Man I'm some glad that thing went down the road....


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> _*I tried that too. All that seemed to happen is the softwood burned to ash, and the ash smothered the coals.*_


Pretty much my experience... just more ash to smother the coals.

I also tried the "criss-cross" loading thing... what a friggin' joke.
Talk 'bout screwin' 'round, especially trying to re-load... and it required two different lengths (or just cut everything shorter).
B'sides, it didn't change a thing...
*


----------



## huntindog1 (Dec 11, 2014)

Some people just ruin good topics.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> Part of the problem is that it was a boiler, and the return from the system entered under the firebox thereby liquid cooling the bottom of it. Right under the coals I was trying to get to burn.


That sounds like a design problem. WS had a similar issue when he made his "Stovace", using a big blower to cool the stove off, especially after removing the firebrick. 



huntindog1 said:


> Some people just ruin good topics.


Oh, that is not an accident.


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 11, 2014)

huntindog1 said:


> Some people just ruin good topics.


Agreed! As long as your house is warm and it works for your situation then it's all good. Why get bent out of shape and try to tell someone how to do something because just because you happen to think it's better? I don't care if you use a 55 gallon drum stove, an open fireplace, owb, wood furnace, new epa stove, or an insert! I like to learn about them all.


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

With so many people having no problem with the same stove that Spider can't get to run maybe there is a quality control issue.


Naaaaa.


The smart money is on belligerent user error.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> That sounds like a design problem.


 
No argument here on that one. It's a pretty fundamental flaw in the design of a ton of water jacketed boilers.


----------



## olyman (Dec 11, 2014)

The smart money is on belligerent user error.[/QUOTE]
your VERY well versed in that area,, the king of it..............as spido said,,self serving BS!!!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*WS had a similar issue when he made his "Stovace", using a big blower to cool the stove off, especially after removing the firebrick.*_


Except... after removing the "stovace" from the basement, removing the plenum I built around it, removing the blower, replacing the firebrick, installing it with a 6" chimney running straight up and through the roof (no elbows)... *NOTHING HAS CHANGED‼*
Even as a full-fledged, un-modified, elitist stove; installed exactly per manufacturer recommendation... *NOTHING HAS CHANGED‼*
What-the-he!! is so hard to understand about this?? The blower had nothing to do with it, that's been eliminated as the cause.
Too damn many assumptions based on...  ...I don't know what they're based on 
Oh yeah... magic crystal balls and bu!!$h!t I guess 
*


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Nothing has changed, but it isn't the STOVE!


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Are you willing to back that up?? If that's where the "smart money" is, how much are you willing to put up??
> Make it enough and I'll pay your air fare to come out here and show me how it's done... bring cash.
> I'm serious you little chicken $h!t... how 'bout $10k??
> 
> ...




Don't get all frustrated Spider. 

There must be dozens of people who can't get heat out of a damn fine wood stoves.

Have a brewski!


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I've got another $5k that says the chicken $h!t weasel never shows... any takers??
> *



I'd feel bad taking your money.


Put your money in a wood shed.

I don't mean put your money in the shed, I mean use it to build a shed for your firewood.

Thought I'd better explain before you came back complaining that the wood shed didn't do a damn thing and you never should have put your money in it.

.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 11, 2014)

That was pretty rude. I have the same problems as Spidey. Am Ian incompetent idiot as well? All of your posts say the same thing. I burn well seasoned wood in a clean appliance as slowly as possible. I have the same coaling issue that he and others do. I burn fairly small splits, 4"x4"-6"x6" at the max by about 18"long. It makes no difference loading N/S or E/W. Above 38-30° it runs like a champ. Under that it builds coals that eventually have to be removed, live. My wood isn't covered, but it sits inside the house (about 12' away from the stove) for a week before burning. What about any of this is idiotic?


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Except... after removing the "stovace" from the basement, removing the plenum I built around it, removing the blower, replacing the firebrick, installing it with a 6" chimney running straight up and through the roof (no elbows)... *NOTHING HAS CHANGED‼*
> Even as a full-fledged, un-modified, elitist stove; installed exactly per manufacturer recommendation... *NOTHING HAS CHANGED‼*
> What-the-he!! is so hard to understand about this?? The blower had nothing to do with it, that's been eliminated as the cause.
> Too damn many assumptions based on...  ...I don't know what they're based on
> ...


I believe you said the shop is uninsulated. When the you have secondary combustion going and it is cold out, does it heat your shop well?


----------



## Del_ (Dec 11, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> That was pretty rude. I have the same problems as Spidey. Am Ian incompetent idiot as well? All of your posts say the same thing. I burn well seasoned wood in a clean appliance as slowly as possible. I have the same coaling issue that he and others do. I burn fairly small splits, 4"x4"-6"x6" at the max by about 18"long. It makes no difference loading N/S or E/W. Above 38-30° it runs like a champ. Under that it builds coals that eventually have to be removed, live. My wood isn't covered, but it sits inside the house (about 12' away from the stove) for a week before burning. What about any of this is idiotic?



Nothing idiotic about it at all unless you extrapolate your experience to every wood stove that meets epa requirments ever made, like Spider has.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 11, 2014)

No I've seen to many good EPA stoves to hate them simply for their agency-derived moniker. I do agree with him that they;re not always the answer and I don't really care for my PE, but live and learn. 

Spidey,
I'd love to have an indoor furnace, but it's not a possibility w/o a lot of re-engineering of my house. An OWB would be a lot easier to deal with. I would love to do an indoor furnace but some walls would have to change, a lot...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*...does it heat your shop well?*_


Heat the shop well??
Let's say it's 40° outside (last weekend) and I go out to do a little work. I load the stove and fire it up... takes about 20-30 minutes before it's making good heat and the secondary is crankin'. Throttle it back and shop temperature rises about 10°-15° over the next 1-1½ hours or so (which I think ain't too bad from a cold start)... and then the secondary starts shuttin' down and shop temperature stops rising. About ½ hour later the shop temperature start droppin'. Well I don't wanna' lose what I've gained, so I walk over to the stove... and there's 4, maybe 5 inches of ashed-over coals in the bottom. So I grab the rake and stir 'em up... damnit, there's 3 splits under them coals that are only charred. I pull them up on top, open the throttle a bit, get some flame, and even a little more secondary... for maybe 10-15 minutes, then just a bed of ashed-over coals. So I stir them again and I'm pullin' dead, black charcoal from the bottom... bank them in front of the door and go wide open. Get a couple weak flames for a minute or two, then nothin'.

It's only 40° outside, it's been less than 3½ hours since _cold_ start-up with a full load, I've got a bucket load of half-dead coals in the firebox, and I've lost nearly 5° in the shop over the last hour. Screw it... I shove more splits in there. About 1½ hours later it starts all over again... only now there's 7 or 8 inches of dead and half-dead coals in the box (but I have managed 65° in the shop). So, at this point, here's my choices...

I can sit there and babysit the box, stirring and raking the coals every 5-10 minutes (which means I ain't gonna' get anything else done).
I can grab the shovel and bucket, dump, reload.

When it's below 20° outside... you don't even wanna' know how much fuel I throw out.
I've even considered haulin' it in the house and dumpin' it in the furnace.

Oh... I'm burnin' elm, ash, Silver Maple and Cherry in the shop... split small(ish), like 3-5 inches. Yeah, it's 2 years seasoned and been stacked in the shop since first week of October.
*


----------



## stihl sawing (Dec 11, 2014)

WS, What's the deal. Stop using profanity in your post and calling names. I have told you to chill out in another thread. Why all the hostility all of a sudden. This is the internet, it don't matter what others think. But you need to stop with the name calling.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

stihl sawing said:


> _*WS, What's the deal.*_


Awww.... I'm sorry man.
In a moment of weakness I let someone get under my skin just a bit... my bad, I'm human sometimes.
You're right... this is the internet... how many times have I said that??
I'm all cooled off now...

Anyway... apologies to everyone for my transgression.
*


----------



## stihl sawing (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Awww.... I'm sorry man.
> In a moment of weakness I let someone get under my skin just a bit... my bad, I'm human sometimes.
> You're right... this is the internet... how many times have I said that??
> I'm all cooled off now...
> ...


Thank you sir.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> and there's 4, maybe 5 inches of ashed-over coals in the bottom. So I grab the rake and stir 'em up... damnit, there's 3 splits under them coals that are only charred.


In 2hrs? How could you possibly get 4-5" of coals in 2hrs without even burning much of 3 of the splits (which is probably about half the load)? I'm not sure how I could do that if I tried.

In general if it only raised the temp 10°-15° from 40° ambient at maximum output in 1-1/2hrs I seriously doubt the stove has the average output rate needed for that structure. The temperature in my basement is up over 20° and there is a large blower sucking all the warm air it can off the top of the room. It's been about 2hrs since I loaded it. Lots of wood left, and not buried under coals either.

Even totally discounting your "Stovace" installation, your stove clearly does not work the way you use it, and I have no idea if the design is capable of functioning properly or not (although I believe I've read here that others are happy with it). But the important point is that that kind of result is _*not*_ typical of this type of stove at all. You like to claim your only point is that these stoves are not always the best for all situations - well fine. However, your continual repetition of such performance and your experience with the stove as if this were what people should of expect from all of them is what many find irritating. The personal experience of many of of us is _*nothing*_ like yours - so much so that I and others find results like you described above to be fantastical. Again, I don't really know how I would make my stove generate 4-5" of coals in 2hrs if I tried to.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> and there's 4, maybe 5 inches of ashed-over coals in the bottom.


That is just really odd...I have never had that issue...


Whitespider said:


> less than 3½ hours since _cold_ start-up with a full load, I've got a bucket load of half-dead coals in the firebox,


You need to take them lemons and...well you know the rest. I can see it now, hang a shingle "Spiders charcoal and charcoal delivery services"


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*How could you possibly get 4-5" of coals in 2hrs without even burning much of 3 of the splits (which is probably about half the load)?*_


More like ¼ of the load (or even a tad less)... I can easily get a dozen of those small splits in a cleaned-out firebox.
And remember... the 4-5 inches of coals included the buried splits (or was estimated before the splits were pulled out).



Chris-PA said:


> _*...as if this were what people should of expect from all of them is what many find irritating.*_


I don't recall tellin' anyone what to expect.
I'm not, and have not been, the only one complaining of such issues over the last couple years... with several breeds of stoves. As well, like I said, I personally know of others locally that do the same thing to greater or lesser degrees. The fact that many are extremely happy (which I've never denied) leads me to the conclusion that they just flat ain't the appropriate choice for everyone, under all conditions. I've _never_ claimed anything more than that... it's the other side of the argument that claims they're _always_, _without fail_, _more better_. Which is ridiculous when talkin' 'bout anything... there ain't no such thing as a be-all-to-end-all, for anything. Heck, if that was the case we'd all be running radial tires_ _

Although, I won't concede the elitist stoves are the best they could be... at the end of the day, they're still bound by regulatory limits.
I ain't stating it as fact they ain't the best they could be... I just ain't conceding they are... I'm a realist.

To make that a bit clearer... I'm bettin' there's something between the classic smoke dragon and the "regulated" elitist stoves that would be, over all, more better.



Chris-PA said:


> _*I don't really know how I would make my stove generate 4-5" of coals in 2hrs if I tried to.*_


Imagine how frustrating it is when you try _not_ to...
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> In 2hrs? How could you possibly get 4-5" of coals in 2hrs without even burning much of 3 of the splits (which is probably about half the load)? I'm not sure how I could do that if I tried.
> 
> In general if it only raised the temp 10°-15° from 40° ambient at maximum output in 1-1/2hrs I seriously doubt the stove has the average output rate needed for that structure. The temperature in my basement is up over 20° and there is a large blower sucking all the warm air it can off the top of the room. It's been about 2hrs since I loaded it. Lots of wood left, and not buried under coals either.
> 
> Even totally discounting your "Stovace" installation, your stove clearly does not work the way you use it, and I have no idea if the design is capable of functioning properly or not (although I believe I've read here that others are happy with it). But the important point is that that kind of result is _*not*_ typical of this type of stove at all. You like to claim your only point is that these stoves are not always the best for all situations - well fine. However, your continual repetition of such performance and your experience with the stove as if this were what people should of expect from all of them is what many find irritating. The personal experience of many of of us is _*nothing*_ like yours - so much so that I and others find results like you described above to be fantastical. Again, I don't really know how I would make my stove generate 4-5" of coals in 2hrs if I tried to.


I don't understand that either! This is my PE stove after day 3 of burning 24/7. I will be dumping the ash after it burns down a bit more but it's still pumping out enough heat to feel from over 10 ft away! That little stove is one of the best purchases I've ever made! However, I've had times where I have had some serious charcoal build up and I have attributed it to wood species and over loading. It's a rare occasion.


----------



## Ronaldo (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Heat the shop well??
> Let's say it's 40° outside (last weekend) and I go out to do a little work. I load the stove and fire it up... takes about 20-30 minutes before it's making good heat and the secondary is crankin'. Throttle it back and shop temperature rises about 10°-15° over the next 1-1½ hours or so (which I think ain't too bad from a cold start)... and then the secondary starts shuttin' down and shop temperature stops rising. About ½ hour later the shop temperature start droppin'. Well I don't wanna' lose what I've gained, so I walk over to the stove... and there's 4, maybe 5 inches of ashed-over coals in the bottom. So I grab the rake and stir 'em up... damnit, there's 3 splits under them coals that are only charred. I pull them up on top, open the throttle a bit, get some flame, and even a little more secondary... for maybe 10-15 minutes, then just a bed of ashed-over coals. So I stir them again and I'm pullin' dead, black charcoal from the bottom... bank them in front of the door and go wide open. Get a couple weak flames for a minute or two, then nothin'.
> 
> It's only 40° outside, it's been less than 3½ hours since _cold_ start-up with a full load, I've got a bucket load of half-dead coals in the firebox, and I've lost nearly 5° in the shop over the last hour. Screw it... I shove more splits in there. About 1½ hours later it starts all over again... only now there's 7 or 8 inches of dead and half-dead coals in the box (but I have managed 65° in the shop). So, at this point, here's my choices...
> ...


With results like you explain......I cant help but think there is something with your particular stove that is not working properly.?????


----------



## Oxford (Dec 11, 2014)

You are absolutely correct, Ronaldo, there is something with the stove that's not working correctly.

The operator.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

At one point, when it was in the basement of the house, I thought the problem might be this...

http://www.gulland.ca/florida_bungalow_syndrome.htm

...and it still may be part of the problem. But now it's in a single story building with a short chimney (shrug)
I've watched it... the secondary shoots jets of flame down into the wood, burning the top into ash and coals that basically smother everything underneath. After that the air just flows over the top of the ashed-over coals (hence my opinion that air coming in from the top is stupid). Experience has taught me that air coming from under the fire, and flowing up through the coal bed, keeps them screamin' friggin' hot, burns the bottom coals first, causing the ash to fall through the grate, which exposes the next layer of coals above to the air flow. How can it possibly be "better" to pass the air over the top of the coal bed, turning the upper layer to ash, thereby limiting or eliminating air from getting to the lower coals?? In my mind, that's just backazzwards... and it sure can't make them burn near as hot (longer yeah, but not near as hot).

OK, secondary combustion makes a lot of heat... I've never denied that.
It's what happens after the secondary shuts down that I find idiotic. I'd much rather have a more even heat throughout the burn than the early nuclear blast followed by luke-warm coffee.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 11, 2014)

Oxford said:


> _*...there is something with the stove that's not working correctly.
> The operator.*_


Oh goody... he's back...
*


----------



## Ronaldo (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> At one point, when it was in the basement of the house, I thought the problem might be this...
> 
> http://www.gulland.ca/florida_bungalow_syndrome.htm
> 
> ...


What I am trying to say is that not all of these stoves are doing what yours is. Mine does not "ash over and smother the fire" and I get good complete burns with no charcoal or unburned pieces.


----------



## zogger (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> At one point, when it was in the basement of the house, I thought the problem might be this...
> 
> http://www.gulland.ca/florida_bungalow_syndrome.htm
> 
> ...




I got it!!

heh heh heh, you'll like this..

Flip the stove upside down!


----------



## Oxford (Dec 11, 2014)

Careful, big fella. You already got your hand slapped for your histrionics once here. Quick, delete the post so nobody will see you said you were sorry.

All of these boil down to the same glue: people like their stoves and you can't stand it, owning as you do a free one that you started bollixing up the moment somebody extended the first ounce of charity towards you by giving it to you, and it's been everyone else's fault but yours for that ever since.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> How can it possibly be "better" to pass the air over the top of the coal bed, turning the upper layer to ash, thereby limiting or eliminating air from getting to the lower coals??


Hot coals cook the volatile compounds out of the wood, which rise to meet the hot air coming from above and burn. My fire does not get smothered by ash. 

Your only burn strategy seems to be to burn the wood as fast as possible with maximum energy output rate at all times. There are other approaches.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 11, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I've watched it... the secondary shoots jets of flame down into the wood, burning the top into ash and coals that basically smother everything underneath.


Mine never shoots flame onto the wood unless I have stacked it right up against the tubes. The secondary action is more just flames floating around in mid air. As a matter a fact, the best secondary action comes with a half load. There is usually a lil flame toward the bottom, air coming from the air wash because I usually plug the boost air off after initial firing. and then the top of the box is full of those "ghost flames"


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> Hot coals cook the volatile compounds out of the wood, which rise to meet the hot air coming from above and burn. My fire does not get smothered by ash.
> 
> Your only burn strategy seems to be to burn the wood as fast as possible with maximum energy output rate at all times. There are other approaches.


There are not other approaches if he needs more heat than that stove can produce. It seems to me that he is expecting to produce more heat than it was rated for. Also, IMHO his bur oak isn't dry enough to produce optimal performance in that stove. But again, that is a guess at best. I live in similar conditions and have recently burned 1.5 yr old bur oak that was stacked in a single row uncovered in the open and it didn't burn as well as the same wood that was in my open on all sides wood shed. I don't have a moisture meter but was my observation.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 11, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> I don't understand that either! This is my PE stove after day 3 of burning 24/7. I will be dumping the ash after it burns down a bit more but it's still pumping out enough heat to feel from over 10 ft away! That little stove is one of the best purchases I've ever made! However, I've had times where I have had some serious charcoal build up and I have attributed it to wood species and over loading. It's a rare occasion.


And what you show is exactly the problem Spidey has with these stoves - the heat output in the part of the burn you show there is not enough to keep his house or shop warm. He needs constant max output rate and so must have air flow pulled or blown through the fire at all times. 


mn woodcutter said:


> There are not other approaches if he needs more heat than that stove can produce. It seems to me that he is expecting to produce more heat than it was rated for.


I agree!


----------



## Oxford (Dec 11, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> And what you show is exactly the problem Spidey has with these stoves - the heat output in the part of the burn you show there is not enough to keep his house or shop warm. He needs constant max output rate and so must have air flow pulled or blown through the fire at all times.
> 
> I agree!



Me too, but he's not going to shut up about it.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 11, 2014)

zogger said:


> I got it!!
> 
> heh heh heh, you'll like this..
> 
> Flip the stove upside down!


 Awesome, just freakin awesome! Post that again so I can like it twice!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

Ronaldo said:


> _*What I am trying to say is that not all of these stoves are doing what yours is.*_


Yes, I know that, I've said that, I've admitted that, I've conceded that... I don't know what else to say to that.



Oxford said:


> _*...it's been everyone else's fault but yours for that ever since.*_


Your making that up. I don't recall placing blame on anyone... certainly not everyone.



Chris-PA said:


> _*Your only burn strategy seems to be to burn the wood as fast as possible with maximum energy output rate at all times.*_


Crystal ball again?? Did you read post #189 and #199??

#189 - "_...takes about 20-30 minutes before it's making good heat and the secondary is crankin'. *Throttle it back* and shop temperature rises about 10°-15° over the next 1-1½ hours or so..._"??
#199 - "_...I'd much *rather have a more even heat* throughout the burn *than the early nuclear blast*..._"??

Does that sound like I'm trying, or wanting to burn as fast as possible... at max output??



mn woodcutter said:


> _*Also, IMHO his bur oak isn't dry enough to produce optimal performance in that stove.*_


Man-o-man... this repeating yourself gets bothersome.
Did you read post #189??

#189 - "_Oh... I'm burnin' *elm*, *ash*, *Silver Maple* and *Cherry* in the shop... *split small(ish)*, like 3-5 inches. Yeah, it's *2 years seasoned* and been *stacked in the shop* *since first week of October*._"

The PE firebox ain't seen a stick of oak in something well over a year... I save oak for the furnace in the house.
B'sides, oak just fills the box full of coals faster.



Oxford said:


> _*Careful, big fella. You already got your hand slapped for your histrionics...*_


Careful?? Of what??
Histrionics?? Pretty sure my exchange with Del_ can't be characterized by histrionics.
Good word though... wrong usage.



Chris-PA said:


> _*He needs constant max output rate...*_


Not only do I not need it (especially at 40°), I don't want it. What I need is for the coal bed to burn instead of dieing out.
How can you guys make such a determination from what's been said??
C'mon‼ The coals die-out to near nothing burning, which means virtually no heat... and from that you deduce I'm not happy unless I have maximum stove output at all times. That's just nonsensical.



zogger said:


> _*I got it!!
> Flip the stove upside down!*_


Well... at least that addresses the issue instead of makein' excuses for it, pointin' fingers, and ignoring whats been said.
Heck, it makes more sense than what these other guys are sayin'‼
Thanks zogger, I may actually give that a shot... you the man‼
*


----------



## Del_ (Dec 12, 2014)

Your wood is not seasoned well enough no matter what the species.


----------



## woodchuck357 (Dec 12, 2014)

I take care of the stoves in 5 houses, two have little epa cert stoves. 
One has been modified slightly with modest improvement. It may get the full treatment next summer.
The other got a box, with a door that has a sliding draft, welded to the bottom. All of the fire brick was removed except for along the back. Most of the original floor was cut away and a grate installed to alow ashes to fall into the new removable ashpan. A retractable cover was made for the secondary air inlet so it can be closed or opened as needed. 
The stove now is easy to start a fire in(without leaving the door open), in complete control at all times, no more coal build-up problems, and more than three small sticks of wood can be put into it at the same time. And, for the short time it is appropriate, there is secondary burn.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

So... woodchuck357... you're sayin' the highly modified stove, including grate and air coming in under the fire, has been _improved_?? And it still achieves secondary burn?? Improved so much that you plan on doin' another one the same way??
NO WAY‼
L-O-L‼
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

Del_ said:


> _*Your wood is not seasoned well enough no matter what the species.*_


----------



## Oxford (Dec 12, 2014)

Histrionics: behavior or speech for effect,as insincere or exaggerated expression of an emotion;dramatics; operatics: 

From Dictionary.com.

You should see if they would put your picture next to the definition, WS.

I generally know what the words mean.


----------



## olyman (Dec 12, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> That was pretty rude. I have the same problems as Spidey. Am Ian incompetent idiot as well? All of your posts say the same thing. I burn well seasoned wood in a clean appliance as slowly as possible. I have the same coaling issue that he and others do. I burn fairly small splits, 4"x4"-6"x6" at the max by about 18"long. It makes no difference loading N/S or E/W. Above 38-30° it runs like a champ. Under that it builds coals that eventually have to be removed, live. My wood isn't covered, but it sits inside the house (about 12' away from the stove) for a week before burning. What about any of this is idiotic?


 youd have to know him from his past.. which is considerably twisted....he LOVES fairys and gnomes.. they are his talking buddys...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

Oxford said:


> _*Histrionics: behavior or speech for effect,as insincere or exaggerated expression of an emotion;dramatics; operatics:
> I generally know what the words mean.*_


----------



## slowp (Dec 12, 2014)

I cracked open the door to get my pre elitist stoves going. That isn't just something recently invented to get communist feminist elitist stoves going. Moot point.


----------



## sdt7618 (Dec 12, 2014)

Are we there yet......


----------



## Cerran (Dec 12, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> And what you show is exactly the problem Spidey has with these stoves - the heat output in the part of the burn you show there is not enough to keep his house or shop warm. He needs constant max output rate and so must have air flow pulled or blown through the fire at all times.
> 
> I agree!



Which would indicate the appliance is undersized for the application but it still doesn't explain the coaling issue. I've never had issues in my quad burning coals down even when burning hardwood.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 12, 2014)

Spidey I think you have to give up. Some people ain't got a clue what it is like trying to heat a house in -35* weather and will never understand the gripe someone like I has. I have an EPA stove and I will say it again,, it is as useless as a bag of broken rubber hammers (and uses a whole lot of wood) when it gets below 0*F. Nobody, nowhere is going to change my mind as I have experienced this firsthand and I don't like it. Anyone can spout of at the mouth with their opinion but the real fact is when it's butt crack cold out I would like a bottom draft, period. My garage stove doesn't have a problem keeping the garage temp stable with coals when I open the bottom draft but this EPA stove when not half to wide open (using a heck of a lot more wood) ashes over and I have to stir and babysit it to keep the house at a bearable temp when its really cold out.


----------



## zogger (Dec 12, 2014)

513yj said:


> Spidey I think you have to give up. Some people ain't got a clue what it is like trying to heat a house in -35* weather and will never understand the gripe someone like I has. I have an EPA stove and I will say it again,, it is as useless as a bag of broken rubber hammers (and uses a whole lot of wood) when it gets below 0*F. Nobody, nowhere is going to change my mind as I have experienced this firsthand and I don't like it. Anyone can spout of at the mouth with their opinion but the real fact is when it's butt crack cold out I would like a bottom draft, period. My garage stove doesn't have a problem keeping the garage temp stable with coals when I open the bottom draft but this EPA stove when not half to wide open (using a heck of a lot more wood) ashes over and I have to stir and babysit it to keep the house at a bearable temp when its really cold out.



So basically, the only epa stoves worth much in seriously cold temps are conventional design, with the cat in the top?


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 12, 2014)

513yj said:


> when it's butt crack cold out I would like a bottom draft, period.


Butt crack cold...? Brr, sounds cold I think I'm gonna go throw another log in the far


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

513yj said:


> _*Spidey I think you have to give up. Some people ain't got a clue...*_


Well... well... well... a voice of reason... a voice of experience... a voice with no ax to grind... a voice of agreement. (With me‼)
Are you _sure_ your wood is dry enough??          

Yeah, you're correct, they will never understand... partially because the refuse to, partially because of their belief in magic.
But, I'll keep tryin'... I like stirrin' the pot 
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

brenndatomu said:


> _*Butt crack cold...? Brr, sounds cold*_


Yeah man... that's colder than _frozen_ sour owl crap‼
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 12, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah, you're correct, they will never understand... partially because the refuse to, partially because of their belief in magic.


So then - if the problem is at very low temperatures, how come you can't make an "EPA" stove work at 40°? I can. No problems at 0° either. Clearly, based on your own statements there is something else to it other than temperature.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*So then - if the problem is at very low temperatures...*_


Please... quote me where I said issues are _only_ at very low temperatures.
I believe what I've said (repeatedly) is... the colder it gets, the worse the issues (or problems) get.

That's what I see as the most aggrieves thing about this whole discussion... some of y'all reading more into what is posted, than what is actually posted.

Take for example the post from 513yj. He _did not_ post that the stove _only_ performs poorly at very low temperatures. He _did not_ post that the stove performs fantastically in warmer temperatures. He _did not_ post anything about performance at warmer temperatures period... he didn't even reference them‼
He simply posted that the stove, "_is as useless as a bag of broken rubber hammers (and uses a whole lot of wood) when it gets below 0*F. ...this EPA stove when not half to wide open (using a heck of a lot more wood) ashes over and I have to stir and babysit it to keep the house at a bearable temp when its really cold out._"
If you read into that more than what he posted... that's on you.

Are his issues _exactly_ like mine?? He!! No‼ His house ain't my house, he don't live where live, his stove ain't my stove, his wood ain't my wood... but his issues are friggin' pretty damn close‼ And that brings us right back to what I keep sayin'... the elitist technology just ain't the best choice for every application, under every condition. It is not, and never will be the be-all-to-end-all... there ain't no such thing‼ Like I said, if there was such a thing, we'd all be runnin' radial tires 

Oh... that, and of course the ridiculous notion that the wood ain't seasoned 
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 12, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Please... quote me where I said issues are _only_ at very low temperatures.
> I believe what I've said (repeatedly) is... the colder it gets, the worse the issues (or problems) get.
> 
> That's what I see as the most aggrieves thing about this whole discussion... some of y'all reading more into what is posted, than what is actually posted.
> ...


You misread my comment. 

The entire comment by 513yj was about how useless these stoves are at very cold temperatures. You chimed in and agreed that we will never understand - fair enough, it doesn't get to -35° in PA. 

But in fact you find them useless at _*all*_ temperatures, based on your stated inability to even raise your garage temperature to 60° at an outside temperature of 40°, while building up a 4" to 5" layer of coals that buried 3 splits in 2hrs (as well as many, many other examples). You have attested that your stove does not work in any temperatures - repeatedly and adamantly in thread after thread. But 40° I certainly do understand, and 0° too. I use my EPA stove in such temperatures all winter long with none of your problems, as do many others. 

So in effect you are correct that we will probably never understand, as we have direct experience that runs counter to yours. 

What I actually don't understand is how a stove with a firebox no bigger than that of your Specturm, with an air intake that pulls air through a grate under the fire, will uniformly heat your (poorly insulated) house to a steady 70° in such godawful low temperatures, and provide a 6-12hr burn time. That to me is fantastical.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 12, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> So then - if the problem is at very low temperatures, how come you can't make an "EPA" stove work at 40°? I can. No problems at 0° either. Clearly, based on your own statements there is something else to it other than temperature.



It's not bad but it's also not that great at 0* and it hardly burns anything at 40* because I have the damper all the way down which allows it to coal and make the temperature in the house what I want. When it gets to 0* I have to keep the damper over half way open to keep it 72* in the house. If i close it up then it goes to coal, builds up ashes and snuffs the coals and guess what happened?? It's now down to 61* in my house and the natty gas furnace kicked in. I want a bottom damper so it does not drop in temp so much or I have to get up in the night to put more wood in because when it's further open it consumes more firewood.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 12, 2014)

That made me think. When mine is dampened all the way down, (good heat when not full of coals) my average burn time from solid light-off is about 2-4 hours depending no how heavy I load it. If I burn it an more opened 1/4 throttle or more, the heat goes up a bit, but the burn time is about 1-2.5hrs. 1/2 or more is stupidly fast. The coals aren't bad but I'm feeding it continuously. On the flip-side, my buddy's circa 9 year old VC Defiant, regardless of outdoor temp, will burn 4-8hrs (with the cat engaged) depending on soft or hard wood and load size. A heavy load of Hedge will last 7-9 hours before it's small coals and fine ash. I was trying to avoid a cat stove, but may still end up with one.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*But in fact you find them useless at **all** temperatures...*_


Nope... never said that. Never used the word useless... never said all temperatures.
I've said several times (paraphrasing) I believe it would be a useful addition to a cozy den or some such.



Chris-PA said:


> _*You have attested that your stove does not work in any temperatures...*_


Does not work?? Well then... quote where I've said that.
It burns wood, that's what it's supposed to do... I've said it does it in a crappy way, not that it "does not work".



Chris-PA said:


> _*I use my EPA stove in such temperatures all winter long with none of your problems, as do many others.*_


Tell me... exactly how many times do I have to concede that before you drop it??
I friggin' know that... I'm happy for you that you're happy... but that in no way means they will work for everyone, in every application, under all conditions. You keep telling me that just because my results have been negative not everyone will have negative results... and I continuously concede that. Then I tell you that just because your results have been positive not everyone will have positive results... and you continuously refuse to concede that, pointing out what (you believe) I'm doing wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that the device may be inappropriate for the application... you refuse to acknowledge anything except I'm the one screwing-up.
Sorry man... I'm not the one being unreasonable in this.



Chris-PA said:


> _*...we have direct experience that runs counter to yours.*_


Once again... I have acknowledged and conceded that... several times.
I (we) have direct experience that runs counter to yours... so... now what?? Could it be the... never mind...



Chris-PA said:


> _*What I actually don't understand is how a stove with a firebox no bigger than that of your Specturm, with an air intake that pulls air through a grate under the fire, will uniformly heat your (poorly insulated) house to a steady 70° in such godawful low temperatures, and provide a 6-12hr burn time. That to me is fantastical.*_


Why fantastical?? Because your experience differed from mine??
Am I callin' your experience with elitist stoves fantastical just because it differs from mine??
How 'bout this... you were screwin' it up, the smoke dragon was the wrong size, you were runnin' it to hard, and your wood was too dry (plus a dozen others I ain't got to yet). No friigin' way it was the appliance, because *I* have never had your problems. Give me a break‼

It's about the magic... ain't it??
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 12, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Nope... never said that.


You are attempting to redirect the conversation by focusing on semantics - I did not claim you "said" the stove was useless, I wrote that you "find" it useless because you are unable to make it work under any conditions. I'm just going on the many things you have posted about this stove. I do not recall one instance where you have said you have been able to make the stove function correctly. It hasn’t mattered what temperature it is outside, or if it was in your house or shop, it has always failed you.



Whitespider said:


> Why fantastical?


No, my gut feel is that a a load of wood that size, putting out enough heat to warm a poorly insulated house to a steady 70° at sub-zero temperatures, isn't going to last 6-12hrs. Therefore I find the claim fantastic.


----------



## farmer steve (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> OK... maybe... but *more* heat from *half* the wood is still way out there in left field.
> Let's say your elitist stove is exceptionally good, and your old smoke dragon was exceptionally bad... "real world" numbers of 45% and 90%.
> 7000 × 100 × .45 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the smoke dragon.
> 7000 × 50 × .90 ÷ 12 = 26250 BTU’s per hour (average) for the elitist stove.
> ...


anyone else having an issue with viewing Dels' posts. i get an error message saying i don't have permission to view the post. maybe i'm on his ignore list for some reason or other.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

farmer steve said:


> _*anyone else having an issue with viewing Dels' posts.*_


I don't know who, why or when... but his early posts in this thread were removed.
*


----------



## farmer steve (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I don't know who, why or when... but his early posts in this thread were removed.
> *


thanks Spidey. FS


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*No, my gut feel is that a a load of wood that size, putting out enough heat to warm a poorly insulated house to a steady 70° at sub-zero temperatures, isn't going to last 6-12hrs.*_


I don't believe I said it would heat for 6-12 hours "_at sub-zero temperatures_"... you're reading more into what was posted than what was posted.
I believe I said it would heat for 6-12 hours _depending_ on quantity and quality of fuel load, heating demand, and whatnot.

I know this ain't a direct comparison... but it's what I've got right now...
Last night I came home to a 70° house at 5:15 PM... the wife told me I didn't need to check the box because she tossed in three pieces about 2:30 or 3:00. At 8:00 PM I put seven splits (not oak, the stuff from the free load) in the box (easily would fit in the old box, or the Spectrum). I rolled-out at 4:45 this morning, it was still 70° in this house, started the coffee and walked down to check the box. A nice screamin' hot bead of coals, no need to add any fuel. Given the mild(ish) temps we're having right now (33°) and calm winds (10 MPH), I figure there won't be any need to add fuel for another 4-6 hours... and then it will only be two or three splits. That's gonna' put it at something over 15 hours on 7 splits...

*10 hours after loading seven, 16-inch long splits of firewood... not oak or anything special.*



It really ain't all that fantastic... believe me...
Am I gonna' get 15 hours when it's sub-zero outside?? He!! No‼
Can I get 6 or 7 hours on a little larger load?? He!! Yes‼
With the larger firebox of the DAKA, I can get an easy 10 hours with a big load of oak at sub-zero temperatures (I've never "*filled*" it, it would be too hot in here)... but the *old box* wasn't that big, so a "*full*" load of oak (10-12, maybe 13 splits depending) was required for *6 or 7 hours* at sub-zero temps.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

And here's the bed of coals _*after 10 hours*_...
_Screamin' friggin' hot_, _not ashed-over_, and pumpin' out just the right amount of heat to cycle the circulation blower on about 3 times an hour... keepin' the house at a steady, even 70°.
Ain't no magic... ain't nothin' fantastical about it...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Like I said in an earlier post, with a smoke dragon (or an up-draft style box if you'd rather) it ain't so much about how you "set" adjustments... it's more about how much, with what, and when you load it. I hear the argument that the auto-draft blower makes "adjustments" for me... but none of my others had that. I see it as givin' me a bit more room for error when loading... I can load a bit on the light side (therefore never overheating the house) and the draft blower plays catch-up when, and if, needed. Without the draft blower, it was easier to error... occasionally your "gut" told you to overload a bit and the house might get to 73°, or on rare occasion 75°. If you erred on the light side, you noticed pretty quick, and just walked down and tossed another split or two in. Actually, I believe the draft blower causes me to use a bit less fuel because I load a touch on the light side. And the DAKA is damn miserly on fuel consumption until temps start gettin' into single digits and lower, especially after sundown... but that ain't unexpected, it-is-what-it-is.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

*12* *hours*


----------



## slowp (Dec 13, 2014)

I'm confused. First coals are bad. Now they are good. EPA stove bad, then OK for den. 

You give a very big impression, from your posts in any thread where EPA is mentioned, that any stove meeting such requirements is useless for heating a house. In all temps at that. Should anybody take you seriously, they will have to spend more $$ than originally planned if their house has no ducts for that wood furnace, and miss the ambiance of a working elitist communist stove. 

Now, I have lived where it got to merely 28 below. That was pre-EPA days and I had an Earth Stove in a 1910 vintage house which was insulated with sawdust. I'd chunk it full before bed, turn it down, and wake up to a coal or two--enough to get it going without newspaper. The house would be cold, but not freezing. It was a larger stove than needed for that house. I imagine if I lived there again, I'd put a larger EPA stove than I have here. That's just common sense--no drama needed. I would think it would heat as well with less chimney cleaning needed. I had to take the elbow into the wall out, and run a ski pole in it to unclog it every month. Oh, and I also had a poorly tarped wood stack--no wood shed. It was a much drier climate than on this side of the mountains, but a woodshed would have kept the wood drier. 

In that valley, there would now be a burning ban slapped on during such weather. So, the below zero argument is probably a moot point for that. They get terrible inversions and need to keep the air clean as tourism is now the main business. 

I guess I should have bought the house this year. It was on the market. I could have installed a communist elitist stove in it so we could find out. Nah, I'd rather spend $$ on a house with modern insulation and construction. Insulation is a good thing.


----------



## olyman (Dec 13, 2014)

513yj said:


> Spidey I think you have to give up. Some people ain't got a clue what it is like trying to heat a house in -35* weather and will never understand the gripe someone like I has. I have an EPA stove and I will say it again,, it is as useless as a bag of broken rubber hammers (and uses a whole lot of wood) when it gets below 0*F. Nobody, nowhere is going to change my mind as I have experienced this firsthand and I don't like it. Anyone can spout of at the mouth with their opinion but the real fact is when it's butt crack cold out I would like a bottom draft, period. My garage stove doesn't have a problem keeping the garage temp stable with coals when I open the bottom draft but this EPA stove when not half to wide open (using a heck of a lot more wood) ashes over and I have to stir and babysit it to keep the house at a bearable temp when its really cold out.


  I can see,, we are going to have to send you,, to the elitist indoctrination school....with ovomit as the head teacher.........


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

slowp said:


> _*I'm confused. First coals are bad. Now they are good. EPA stove bad, then OK for den.*_


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

*13* *hours*
What the he!! happened??
I was out in the shop, so I'm just guessin' here...
But I assume the house dropped to 69½° and the draft blower kicked in and woke up the coal bed until the house reached 70½°. Because of the mild(ish) temps outside there was enough residual heat from the blower runnin' to bump it up another ½°. (Damn frustrating, ain't it??)
But that's just a guess...


----------



## laynes69 (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Way more than I figured on... and I just moved more in the house last night.
> Hard to know for sure because some of it was never stacked and measured... it went directly from the saw into the basement. As well, some of what was stacked wasn't used to heat the house... it got burned out in the shop.
> But...
> There's about 10 cord missing from the stacks and I'm guessing I tossed another 2 cord of standing-dead in there last fall... maybe more. So something over 12 cord and still burning it. 1½ cord Black Walnut, 2 cord American Elm, ½ cord Red Elm, 3 cord Sugar Maple, 5 cord Burr Oak, and maybe 1 cord of odds, ends and whatever it was.
> ...



Whitespider, this post was from this year at the end of the season. It sounds like your happy with your new furnace, but there's quite a discrepancy between the wood usage. Either way, it doesn't matter. I do feel, if you had a modern unit that was designed for central heating, you would save wood, but if your happy thats all that matters. 



Whitespider said:


> How many cord do I burn in a year?? What year?? Which appliance?? What kind of wood??
> Let's see, last year was the first year with this furnace, and it was one of the coldest and longest in decades... if I remember correctly it was something in the neighborhood of 5½ or 6 cord (I think... some of it was standing-dead elm that went directly in the house unmeasured), and that also includes what the PE burned in the shop (probably 1½ cord).
> The year before was cold and long also, and I was using the PE conversion... something just over 9 cord I believe.
> The year before that was pretty mild, and it was the last year with the old converted smoke dragon stove... right at 3½ cord, maybe a touch over.
> ...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

laynes69 said:


> _*Whitespider, this post was from this year at the end of the season.*_


Yes, but I didn't burn all the oak I had in the house... it sat in the basement all summer.
I was moving elm and whatnot in April... I didn't wanna' waste the oak. Although I still had 'ta mix it in because I was light in "lessor" quality stuff. Still, I may have underestimated (I did say "I think"), and I may have over-estimated last spring, or both... I don't "measure", it's all guess work. What can I say (shrug).


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

*14 hours* and holdin' steady (although a bit warm in here... damnit).
Looks like I was light on the 15 hour estimate... may be 16 hours before I'm tossin' 2-3 splits in to keep the coal bed viable.


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> *14 hours* and holdin' steady (although a bit warm in here... damnit).
> Looks like I was light on the 15 hour estimate... may be 16 hours before I'm tossin' 2-3 splits in to keep the coal bed viable.
> 
> View attachment 386388


I have to say that is impressive! Even though the temps are fairly mild I would say you have a very sweet setup there!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> _*I have to say that is impressive! Even though the temps are fairly mild...*_


Yeah... 39° right now. Ain't no way I'd have got this many hours if temps were colder. Mid-20s and I'd have loaded three hours ago... maybe four. If we were in single digits I'd have loaded a least a little when I rolled out this morning just to stay ahead of it.
But...

*16½* *hours* and it's finally time to add some fuel (thermometer just now changed to 69°). The truth is I've pushed it because of this thread... I really should'a added a couple sticks about 1½ or 2 hours ago (exactly what I estimated early this morning... 'bout 15 hours) so we wouldn't lose. Anyway... here it is... loosing a little bit of temp in the house. I'm headed down to toss some sticks in...


----------



## olyman (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... 39° right now. Ain't no way I'd have got this many hours if temps were colder. Mid-20s and I'd have loaded three hours ago... maybe four. If we were in single digits I'd have loaded a least a little when I rolled out this morning just to stay ahead of it.
> But...
> 
> *16½* *hours* and it's finally time to add some fuel (thermometer just now changed to 69°). The truth is I've pushed it because of this thread... I really should'a added a couple sticks about 1½ or 2 hours ago (exactly what I estimated early this morning... 'bout 15 hours) so we wouldn't lose. Anyway... here it is... loosing a little bit of temp in the house. I'm headed down to toss a some in...
> View attachment 386429


 and the proud, arrogant ones.. would tell you a elitist stove would be soooooooooo much better........


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Oh‼ And after *16½ hours* there's enough *screamin' hot* coals (that ain't ashed-over) to just open the door, toss in the sticks, slam the friggin' door, and walk away‼
Fantastical... ain't it??


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Have I mentioned just how much I hate my elitist stove??
*


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Have I mentioned just how much I hate my elitist stove??
> *


Enough already! I think we get it. Clearly you've found something that works well for you! That's great. Good for you!
However, I would HATE my Subaru outback if I were trying to use it as my primary wood hauler!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

mn woodcutter said:


> _*Enough already!*_


*L-O-L ‼*
And just *½ hour* later were back on track... the whole house.
Life is damn good in NE Iowa.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... 39° right now.





Whitespider said:


> Oh‼ And after *16½ hours* there's enough *screamin' hot* coals (that ain't ashed-over) to just open the door, toss in the sticks, slam the friggin' door, and walk away‼
> Fantastical... ain't it??


All more irrelevant distraction, as this discussion was never about a wood furnace with an active control system and a forced draft blower in a 39° warm spell. 

How about that simple box with fixed air inlets you never adjusted through the burn, and air flow up through the coal bed, heating your house to a steady 70° in sub zero temps (yes, that was the discussion), and burning for 6-12hrs? *No adjustments at all during the burn.* 

BTW, since it is 37° here today I let the large secondary combustion stove go out and am burning the little Hampton H200 secondary combustion stove. House is nice and toasty with only a couple of small splits in that small fire box. No ash problems either. Here I've just reloaded it for the first time today - three small splits (<14"):


Nice hot coals - the primary air is almost completely shut down. Here is the awful load of coal and ash in the bottom - I haven't cleaned it out in quite a few days of burning:


----------



## slowp (Dec 13, 2014)

I got up around 5:30. Started up the Quadrafire elitist communist feminist stove. Put in 3 pieces of firewood. Added 3 more and turned it down. House got too hot. Stove is going out, slower than I wish. It is 40 outside. House is 1400 sq. feet, built recently with 2X6 walls, insulated and vinyl doublepane? windows in it--lots of glass in the big room. My "blower" is a ceiling fan.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Jesus Chris-PA, you really do believe in the magic, don't ya'??
Did you even bother to read post #236??
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Jesus Chris-PA, you really do believe in the magic, don't ya'??
> Did you even bother to read post #236??
> *


Sure - you went on an on about the performance of your wood furnace, which is totally irrelevant in a discussion about wood *stoves*. And backpedaled on the 6-12hr burn - which appliance was that exactly? It appears it was actually the furnace too. How long would that stove you had before the "Stovace" actually go while maintaining a steady 70° on a really cold day with a fixed air setting? I don't have any doubt that a large wood furnace with a control system that can stop the burn down to nothing and then blast it back to life with a blower can heat your place on a 39° day with a very long burn time. Yawn.

I'm heating mine with a tiny secondary combustion stove and a few small splits, and not building up a huge bed of coals, and it's a couple of degrees colder here today. So you're saying this is magic, or that maybe I'm not actually heating my house but just think I am thanks to my belief in magic?

Then again I guess you would think it is magic, as on a similar day you were unable to get your shop up to 60° with a much larger secondary combustion stove, and buried the splits in a 4-5" bed of coals in 2hrs. Apparently you don't know the magic spell.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 13, 2014)

...I vote to refer to the "feminist elitist communist stove" as simply FECS from here on...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*How long would that stove you had before the "Stovace" actually go while maintaining a steady 70° on a really cold day with a fixed air setting?*_


I answered that in post #236... the post you claim was only about my furnace... obviously you _did not_ read it.
This repeating myself is gettin' old, but I'll do it again...

#236 - "_I don't believe I said it would heat for 6-12 hours "at sub-zero temperatures"... you're reading more into what was posted than what was posted.
I believe I said it would heat for 6-12 hours depending on quantity and quality of fuel load, heating demand, and whatnot.
... ... ...
With the larger firebox of the DAKA, I can get an easy 10 hours with a big load of oak at sub-zero temperatures (I've never "_*filled*_" it, it would be too hot in here)... but the _*old box*_ wasn't that big, so a "_*full*_" load of oak (10-12, maybe 13 splits depending) was required for _*6 or 7 hours*_ at *sub-zero temps*._"


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> I answered that in post #236... the post you claim was only about my furnace... obviously you _did not_ read it.
> This repeating myself is gettin' old, but I'll do it again...
> 
> #236 - "_I don't believe I said it would heat for 6-12 hours "at sub-zero temperatures"... you're reading more into what was posted than what was posted.
> ...


OK, I really don't care how the furnace compares to the Spectrum wood stove, it is apples-to-oranges and just makes digging through your claims a PITA. 

So you are saying the firebox of the stove you had before the Spectrum held up to 13 splits? And you could put that much in the Spectrum too? Most of the secondary combustion stoves are not intended to have the firebox filled to the air manifold. Mine recommends only loading wood up to the top of the bricks - I fill it higher but not to the top.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*So you are saying the firebox of the stove you had before the Spectrum held up to 13 splits? And you could put that much in the Spectrum too?*_


Why are you asking me what I'm saying... when what I'm saying is in black 'n' white.
I said, "_(10-12, *maybe* 13 splits *depending*)_"
Sort'a depends on the size and shape of the splits... don't it??



Chris-PA said:


> _*Most of the secondary combustion stoves are not intended to have the firebox filled to the air manifold. Mine recommends only loading wood up to the top of the bricks - I fill it higher but not to the top.*_


And now you're arguing I fill it too full?? C'mon‼ This is getting way out there.
The instructions for mine... nothing about how full except in reference to safety.

Lighting a Fire
1. Adjust air control to position H (maximum firing rate) and open door.
2. Place crumpled newspaper in the center of the heater and criss-cross with several pieces of dry kindling. Add a few small pieces of dry wood on top.
3. Ignite the paper and close the door.
4. After the fire has established itself, open the door and add a few small logs. Close door.
5. Begin normal operation after a good coal base exists and wood has charred.

Normal Operation
1. Set air control to a desired setting. If smoke pours down across the glass (waterfall effect) this indicates you have shut the control down too soon or you are using too low a setting. The wide range control panel makes finding the desired setting for your application easy. As every home's heating needs vary (ie. insulation, windows, climate, etc.) the proper setting can only be found by trial and error and should be noted
for future burns.
2. To refuel, adjust air control to high, and give the fire time to brighten. Open the door slowly, this will prevent backpuffing.
3. Use wood of different shape, diameter and length (up to 18"). Load your wood endwise and try to place the logs so that the air can flow between them. Always use dry wood.
4. Do not load fuel to a height or in such a manner that would be hazardous when opening the door.
5. For extended or overnight burns, unsplit logs are preferred. Remember to char the wood completely on maximum setting before adjusting air control for overnight burn.

513yj was correct, time to give up...
Yep... your right... I'm an idiot...
*
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2014)

brenndatomu said:


> _*...I vote to refer to the "feminist elitist communist stove" as simply FECS from here on...*_


Although I really liked the post... or the shortening of the label... I still don't see where feminism and communism relate to stoves.
(And yeah... I'm aware you didn't label them that way.)
Personally I like feces (*f*eminist *e*litist *c*ommunist *E*PA *s*tove)... but I'm sort'a in a mood 
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 13, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yep... your right... I'm an idiot...


Just for the record, I have not called anyone any names. 



Whitespider said:


> And now you're arguing I fill it too full?? C'mon‼ This is getting way out there.
> The instructions for mine... nothing about how full except in reference to safety.


You are correct; there is nothing about load height in the Spectrum manual. There is in mine.

I think here we get to the core of the problem. The Spectrum appears to have a similarly sized firebox to my Magnolia - mine is listed as 3.2 cu in while the Spectrum is only 2.1, but it looks like it is really pretty close to the same size. The Magnolia is 18.25" X 20.25". I can put 6 typical sized splits in there, sometimes a couple more thin ones on top. 

I can see if you packed it full to the top, without leaving gaps between the splits for air to move through as instructed, then the top of the logs up by the air manifold would incinerate while the bottom will smother. This is simply another indication that the stove was too small, as I have said many times before, and over filling it did not make it work better. 

From the Spectrum manual:

_3. Use wood of different shape, diameter and length (up to 18"(457mm)). Load your wood endwise and try to place the logs so that the air can flow between them._

I always select and arrange the wood I put in carefully, even though it might take an extra minute. I make sure air can flow through from the bottom front and up through the splits. If I don't it would be next to impossible to light and the fire will not be hot enough, and not cook out the volatile compounds of the logs above. 

No wonder you have to light it with belly button lint and lighter fluid rather than a couple of pieces of junk mail.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 13, 2014)

I have a Quadrafire 3100i and it heats 2/3 of my 2300 square foot house to in the mid-high 70's by itself until the weather gets single digits or below which which point I fire up the Englander.

WS, your entire argument has been that the newer staged combustion stoves aren't good fits in many cases but you haven't made a good argument as to why and provided solid evidence as to what those situations are. You have made a claim that you have seen several of the newer stoves not work properly but no reference to the stove models, combustion types, firewood used or any other relevant factors. It would make sense to try and understand why these installs don't work while many other installs that are similar do.

I still haven't heard the reasoning why a stove that brings air under the coals is better than a stove designed for staged combustion.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 13, 2014)

I'm rather curious why moving air through coals is a bad idea. Seems to be a principle that some adhere to but don't think I've read the reasoning behind it.


----------



## Oxford (Dec 13, 2014)

No, WS, you're not "sorta in a mood." You're the way those of us who pay attention have seen you before, which is to say that you've painted yourself into a corner with your smug, superior, nonsensical prattling- or as it was once memorably put: "pseudoscientific twaddle"- and people who pay attention, in this case Chris and Cerran, have called you on it. In spite of the fact that your kids have evidently shown you how to use memes, your comebacks to their reasonable comments have gotten further and further out, and now you're so ornery that you're about ready to bite yourself, as my grandmother would have said.

Everybody gets it, man. You can't get your stove to work- at least not the way you think it should-, and you're a compulsive blow-hole who is also a legend in your own mind, driven to completely take over any conversation about any topic, but especially about these stoves. Every time you go on one of these runs, you find a guy or two, usually members of the "I have a stove that's too small for my house" club to join in, which in your mind completely validates your position that the stoves don't work. You don't like the EPA, either, so it's a twofer for you: you're predisposed to hate the stove and now you have an amen chorus, however small, to hum along while you bloviate and bluster and pretend like you're not saying that all of the EPA stoves are junk when any fool can see that is exactly what you're saying, no matter how many people are warm because of one. As a Lucky Strike extra, in this current cycle one of your pack actually makes you look smart when he posts.

The mods evidently won't say it but I will (again): give it a rest, why don't you?


----------



## wndwlkr (Dec 14, 2014)

Secondary Burn :: Sounds like an X WIFE:: If ya burn it right the first time ya don't need to burn it again! This Tread ROCKS ! That spider guy is a Hoot.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Oxford said:


> _*...give it a rest, why don't you?*_


NO‼ naa, naa, naaa, naa, naa 
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*WS, your entire argument has been that the newer staged combustion stoves aren't good fits in many cases but you haven't made a good argument as to *_*why* _*and provided solid evidence as to *_*what* _*those *_*situations*_* are.*_


Sure I have... over and over.
Why?? Because they don't work worth sour owl crap in those cases. What more needs sayin'??
What situations?? When a relatively _constant_ and _steady_ heat output is required (or even desired) during the entire burn cycle.



Cerran said:


> _*You have made a claim that you have seen several of the newer stoves not work properly but no reference to the stove models, combustion types, firewood used or any other relevant factors.*_


Stove models?? Heck, I don't know... 'cause it ain't important to me, it's not something I would even think to ask. I know one was purchased at a dealer in Waterloo and one at a "big-box" store (Menards I think)... don't know 'bout the others.
Combustion types?? Huh?? What do you mean?? They are elitist stoves... secondary combustion types.
Firewood used?? You're kiddin'?? Well, the firewood came from trees I believe. B'sides, an up-draft box ain't picky.



Cerran said:


> _*I still haven't heard the reasoning why a stove that brings air under the coals is better than a stove designed for staged combustion.*_


Sure you have... you just ain't listening.
Because of a more _constant_ and _steady_ heat output over the entire burn cycle... which... is... "_better_"... in... certain... situations.
*


----------



## olyman (Dec 14, 2014)

Oxford said:


> No, WS, you're not "sorta in a mood." You're the way those of us who pay attention have seen you before, which is to say that you've painted yourself into a corner with your smug, superior, nonsensical prattling- or as it was once memorably put: "pseudoscientific twaddle"- and people who pay attention, in this case Chris and Cerran, have called you on it. In spite of the fact that your kids have evidently shown you how to use memes, your comebacks to their reasonable comments have gotten further and further out, and now you're so ornery that you're about ready to bite yourself, as my grandmother would have said.
> 
> Everybody gets it, man. You can't get your stove to work- at least not the way you think it should-, and you're a compulsive blow-hole who is also a legend in your own mind, driven to completely take over any conversation about any topic, but especially about these stoves. Every time you go on one of these runs, you find a guy or two, usually members of the "I have a stove that's too small for my house" club to join in, which in your mind completely validates your position that the stoves don't work. You don't like the EPA, either, so it's a twofer for you: you're predisposed to hate the stove and now you have an amen chorus, however small, to hum along while you bloviate and bluster and pretend like you're not saying that all of the EPA stoves are junk when any fool can see that is exactly what you're saying, no matter how many people are warm because of one. As a Lucky Strike extra, in this current cycle one of your pack actually makes you look smart when he posts.
> 
> The mods evidently won't say it but I will (again): give it a rest, why don't you?


 100 posts, compared to 6,000 plus posts,, yeah................standing on top of the podium, are yah???


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> _*I'm rather curious why moving air through coals is a bad idea. Seems to be a principle that some adhere to but don't think I've read the reasoning behind it.*_


Well... at least from what I've experienced...
In a box with air comin' in from the top, a deep coal bed is a detriment as both box capacity and heat output is reduced.
In a box with air comin' in from under a grate and flowing up through the coals, a deep coal bed is an attribute. Although it also reduces box capacity, it increases heat output. Losing the coal bed, lettin' it burn out, means you'll have less heat until you build it back up. In my up-draft boxes I never let the coal bed burn completely out... but I "adjust" the depth of it, depending on heat demand, by how much I load, what I load, and how often I load. The entire coal bed runs screamin' hot because air hits the lower coals first and passes up through all of them (like a forge). The lighter "fly ash" is blown away and carried out the flue, the heavier ash falls through the grate... once a day, usually first thing in the morning I will give the coal bed a quick rake or shake, but that's about it. During extreme cold I'll run them with deep coal beds, several inches deep... in milder temps I'll run them with maybe only a couple inches of coals. And... keeping, or maintaining, a coal bed has another advantage; it pre-heats the air before it gets to added fuel, which is ignited and chard much faster (i.e., very little smoke from your smoke dragon).
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

OH‼ By-the-way...




And not sayin' it hasn't ('cause I can't say as fact), but I ain't heard the draft blower kick in since Friday morning (although there was evidence it did once yesterday). Ya' know?? The "adjustment" thing??


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Ya' know what?? Now that I think 'bout it, I'm doubting the draft blower did kick on yesterday... the programmed weekend set points...

5:30 AM - 70°
8:30 AM - 68°
5:30 PM - 70°
9:30 PM - 66°

The only difference with the week day set points is 72° at 5:30 AM (so it's a bit warmer in here for the kids getting up and ready for school), and 68° a bit earlier at 7:30 AM ('cause their all out'a the house by then).
We maintain 70° during the day by loading technique (the wife does it more than me, I'm at work 5 days a week)... no "adjustments" of any sort, not even "automatic draft blower" adjustment. The 68° set point is just back-up in case no one is home.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Just for the record, I have not called anyone any names.*_


That's absolutely true...
My bad for suggesting you had.
My apologies.
(I would have posted this in the beginning, but, for some reason, it passed over my head first glance.)
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

OK... well... I can't think of anything else to post right now, so Oxford will just have to be happy with what I've given him 

(Shhhhhhh... don't tell him... little does he know, but I was done with this thread until he asked me to give it a rest.)
*


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> #189 - "_...takes about 20-30 minutes before it's making good heat and the secondary is crankin'._


The Englander in the house has a ceramic plate to store heat for secondary. When I first start the stove I can arrange wood so secondary begins in about 10 minutes. When I refill the stove between 12:00 and 2:00 am, stacking splits on the existing coals, it can take up to 20 minutes to build enough heat for secondary. I know it seems backward but that's the way it is. The Century in the barn heats steel to trigger the secondary burn. Starting the stove at 30 deg, secondary usually begins in 10-12 minutes. Wood quality and dryness varies in the barn and this can affect secondary time dramatically.



zogger said:


> So basically, the only epa stoves worth much in seriously cold temps are conventional design, with the cat in the top?


Those stoves seem to be the #1 choice in Alaska. One of the stovemakers that used to participate on this forum said his non-cat stoves couldn't even break into that market.




Chris-PA said:


> I can see if you packed it full to the top, without leaving gaps between the splits for air to move through as instructed, then the top of the logs up by the air manifold would incinerate while the bottom will smother. This is simply another indication that the stove was too small, as I have said many times before, and over filling it did not make it work better.



I wondered about overfilling also. I can't think of many reasons to find unburned wood in the middle of a hot fire. Lack of oxygen to the center of the fire is all I can really imagine. It seems like overfilling or a major problem in the box itself so it's not working as intended.



Whitespider said:


> What situations?? When a relatively _constant_ and _steady_ heat output is required (or even desired) during the entire burn cycle.


Well... both of my stoves can maintain relatively constant and steady temperatures in the building while we're up. I do the same thing as you to regulate temp... vary wood size and species.




The thermometer in the kitchen reads 73 which is a bit warm so I'm letting the coals die back some before adding something from the left side of the wood box.




In a bit I'll put some of those small pieces on. I'll use just a piece or two of the small sticks until the temp in the front room drops to about 70. Then I'll throw some larger pieces in. There will always be some variation in the front of the house because the stove is sized for the whole house, not just the front, and it's wide open in this half. But we see the largest variation between the last refill of the night and when we get up in the morning. In order to get the most sleep time I put the heaviest, densest wood on the fire. That causes a temperature spike that can get pretty warm in the front. But it's usually cooled back to a reasonable temp by the time we get up.

And the barn? Well, it's 35 degrees in the barn now. If I start the stove and run it for 3 hours the temp will be 35 when I'm done. I'd say that's extremely consistent.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

1project2many said:


> _*And the barn? Well, it's 35 degrees in the barn now. If I start the stove and run it for 3 hours the temp will be 35 when I'm done. I'd say that's extremely consistent.*_


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

1project2many said:


> _*Those stoves seem to be the #1 choice in Alaska. One of the stovemakers that used to participate on this forum said his non-cat stoves couldn't even break into that market.*_


I've never even seen a cat stove (that I'm aware of). If they feed air under a coal grate for conventional primary combustion, plus burn the flue gasses via the cat... I'm thinkin' there's a possibility of having the best of both worlds. And if that is the case... I can believe the non-cat elitist stoves are unable to "break into that market".

One thing bothers me about cat fireboxes... the expense of replacing the cat when required. Likely I'd just toss it when the time came. Sort'a like the heat exchangers on fancy furnaces... I just don't wanna' screw around cleaning them (yeah, after all the work makin' firewood, I like the burnin' part to be easy).
Still, I'd like to see a cat box in operation... ya' just never know, do ya'??
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

I just went to Vermont Castings and found this. I've never really looked into cat fireboxes... but I do need something else for the shop. And their description of longer, more even heat output pretty much echos what I'm lookin' for. I may just have to research them a bit... still, I'd like to see one running though. I also couldn't help but notice they describe a non-cat as be for "less heating demands."

*Catalytic*
Offering higher efficiency heating, catalytic wood stoves are ideal for those who wish to replace a major portion of their heating needs with their wood stove. _Note: A catalyst needs to be cleaned and maintained and generally needs to be replaced every 5 years or so. _

*Higher efficiency* lowers fuel costs to heat your home.
Longer, more *even heat output* with thermostatic air control
Reduced particulates for a cleaner, more *eco-friendly burn*

*Non-Catalytic*
Non-catalytic wood stoves are slightly more affordable and require less maintenance. Easy to start and operate, a non-catalytic stove is ideal for those with less heating demands.

Lively flame picture
*Easy to use and maintain* - no catalytic combustor
*Hassle-free* operation


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 14, 2014)

I was really concerned about cat replacement cost in '07 when I bought the Englander. I thought that would give secondary burn a real advantage. Blaze King warrants the converter for ten years but the initial price for the stove is so high that imo you're essentially buying the first replacement converter with the stove. Still, the investment may be worthwhile.

Wood burns on the brick floor. No grate.

This is the stove that would replace my house model:
http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-princess.html

The manual has some clues about construction:
http://www.blazeking.com/PDF/manuals/en/wood/OM-PE E V1.05.pdf

A video, for anyone interested:


To me it's a different way to think about burning wood. There are some clues that it can have clear advantages over secondary burn.



> I also couldn't help but notice they describe a non-cat as be for "less heating demands."



Interesting. These stoves have been out for what, ten years? In '07 all the reviews I found said the two types were pretty much equal.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 14, 2014)

I just did some research of the woodpiles this morning and so far this year I burned about 1/3 of the wood I did last year with the exact same stove and house. I'm going to venture out on a limb here and guess it is because the temp outside is a lot warmer overall than last year at this time. If the winter is milder, such as the overall temps for the last 10 years(except for last year) I don't have a problem with this stove, but in cases like last winter it just did not cut the mustard (grey poupon nonetheless ). In the past 4 years of owning this thing it was great years 1-3 but in year 4 when the Upper Peninsula winter decided to make a comeback, I felt it wasn't up to the task. The bright side of shoveling a lot of coals is this


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

1project2many said:


> _*I was really concerned about cat replacement cost in '07 when I bought the Englander...
> Wood burns on the brick floor. No grate.*_


Yeah, I'm seein' a couple different approaches to cat technology... some burn on a firebrick floor, some on a grate. And a couple different approaches to the grate also... some actually feed some air under the grate, some expect(?) the air to find it's way under (which is sort'a like one of my experiments with the PE). If I did get one, it would have to be one burning on a grate (easy ash removal if nothing more)... whether-or-not it directly fed air under it is still in my thought process.

OH‼ By-the-way...


----------



## Del_ (Dec 14, 2014)

1project2many said:


> I wondered about overfilling also. I can't think of many reasons to find unburned wood in the middle of a hot fire. Lack of oxygen to the center of the fire is all I can really imagine. It seems like overfilling or a major problem in the box itself so it's not working as intended.



Unburned wood in the firebox is a result of using firewood not seasoned properly.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 14, 2014)

1project2many said:


> I was really concerned about cat replacement cost in '07 when I bought the Englander. I thought that would give secondary burn a real advantage. Blaze King warrants the converter for ten years but the initial price for the stove is so high that imo you're essentially buying the first replacement converter with the stove. Still, the investment may be worthwhile.


The cat stoves are interesting, but given my expectations for severe economic disruption in the near future I did not want to be dependent on replacements parts from some small company that might not make it. If the secondary combustion stoves give up something in performance to the cat stoves I'm OK with that, as they depend only of the shape of the steel/iron and refractory parts. In fact when we bought the little stove (Hampton H200) I eliminated several stoves as they had very complex cast refractory combustion chamber parts that I would not be able to duplicate. The Magnolia has only firebrick.


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 14, 2014)

Del_ said:


> Unburned wood in the firebox is a result of using firewood not seasoned properly.



Maybe. I thought he'd said the stove had gotten hot and achieved secondary combustion before dieing back. I can't get secondary unless the moisture content in the stove is low.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 14, 2014)

513yj said:


> I just did some research of the woodpiles this morning and so far this year I burned about 1/3 of the wood I did last year with the exact same stove and house. I'm going to venture out on a limb here and guess it is because the temp outside is a lot warmer overall than last year at this time. If the winter is milder, such as the overall temps for the last 10 years(except for last year) I don't have a problem with this stove, but in cases like last winter it just did not cut the mustard (grey poupon nonetheless ). In the past 4 years of owning this thing it was great years 1-3 but in year 4 when the Upper Peninsula winter decided to make a comeback, I felt it wasn't up to the task. The bright side of shoveling a lot of coals is thisView attachment 386638



I've started my frill and smoker more than once on live coals out of my PE. I guess you have to find your silver linings where you can. LMAO



Del_ said:


> Unburned wood in the firebox is a result of using firewood not seasoned properly.



Or a sign of insufficient airflow/fuel where they're getting smothered. They hey to the fire triangle is having enough fuel, heat and oxygen to burn (and then to regulate the efficiency of burn thereafter). If the air and air/fuel ratio is out of spec with it's relationship to the heat, the fire suffers. I think that after the secondary dies, the airflow to the bottom isn't enough for the remaining fuel quantity to burn efficiently/properly resulting in charcoal or what the pellet stove guys call clinkers (albeit via a different process).


----------



## Del_ (Dec 14, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> Or a sign of insufficient airflow/fuel where they're getting smothered. They hey to the fire triangle is having enough fuel, heat and oxygen to burn (and then to regulate the efficiency of burn thereafter). If the air and air/fuel ratio is out of spec with it's relationship to the heat, the fire suffers. I think that after the secondary dies, the airflow to the bottom isn't enough for the remaining fuel quantity to burn efficiently/properly resulting in charcoal or what the pellet stove guys call clinkers (albeit via a different process).



But we are talking about unburnt splits of wood, not charcoal or clinkers. The heat of the coal bed sitting on top of the unburnt wood should force out the pyrolytic gasses. If there is not enough oxygen for these gasses to mix and burn then they just go up the chimney unburnt. Being this is not happening moisture in the wood is likely the cause. In a furnace with forced draft when the draft blower is off the pyrolytic gasses are still being released, they just go up the chimney unburnt. Cutting off the air supply to a burning load of wood does not stop the release of these gasses. This is a main reason for a loss of combustion efficiency and increased particle output of this type of heating device. Even with the loss of efficiency though these heating devices control heat output well and run for a long times but they do consume larger amounts of fuel for the same btu output.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 14, 2014)

I've never had entire un-burnt splits of wood but have had "leftovers" which were up 8-10" long by 2-4" wide. If I have them, they'll be at the back of the stove buried at the bottom where the airflow is the worst.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Del_ said:


> _*Unburned wood in the firebox is a result of using firewood not seasoned properly.*_


 So... when I close the vents on my grill, and the fire goes out, it's because the charcoal is wet?? 


Del_ said:


> _*The heat of the coal bed sitting on top of the unburnt wood should force out the pyrolytic gasses.*_


 So... where is this heat gonna' come from if the coals are dead because they've been starved of oxygen?? 

Give up on the wet wood theory Del... I can state as fact the wood ain't wet, I can state as fact that it is well seasoned (as dry as is possible in the local I live).
You on the other hand are just relying on a magic crystal ball.



Locust Cutter said:


> _*I've never had entire un-burnt splits of wood but have had "leftovers" which were up 8-10" long by 2-4" wide. If I have them, they'll be at the back of the stove buried at the bottom where the airflow is the worst.*_


Yup... that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. I did say "charred and blackened."



We have a conundrum... the two thermostats are not in agreement at the moment. I've never noticed such a conundrum before 
The lower one is, or was, for the gas furnace... which don't even have the gas turned on.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 14, 2014)

Are those the settings or the registering temps? A 1° isn't bad.


----------



## 1project2many (Dec 14, 2014)

> _*I've never had entire un-burnt splits of wood but have had "leftovers" which were up 8-10" long by 2-4" wide. If I have them, they'll be at the back of the stove buried at the bottom where the airflow is the worst.*_
> 
> Yup... that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. I did say "charred and blackened."



Ok, not complete splits. Still a bunch of unused fuel. But even better to confirm dryness and some gasification.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Sure I have... over and over.
> Why?? Because they don't work worth sour owl crap in those cases. What more needs sayin'??
> What situations?? When a relatively _constant_ and _steady_ heat output is required (or even desired) during the entire burn cycle.



At yet lots of us with the newer stoves get constant and steady heat output for the majority of the burn cycle. No wood stove gives out constant heat during the entire burn cycle unless you're loading it partway through the cycle since it's a batch process. Additionally you haven't provided the evidence or the data to support your assertions WS, you have simply asserted it's true.




Whitespider said:


> Stove models?? Heck, I don't know... 'cause it ain't important to me, it's not something I would even think to ask. I know one was purchased at a dealer in Waterloo and one at a "big-box" store (Menards I think)... don't know 'bout the others.
> Combustion types?? Huh?? What do you mean?? They are elitist stoves... secondary combustion types.
> Firewood used?? You're kiddin'?? Well, the firewood came from trees I believe. B'sides, an up-draft box ain't picky.



So in other words you really don't know if the stoves really work well or not because you have already decided without any good data to support your position. If you don't understand that there are different combustion types and why the newer stoves operate the way they do, how can you make a claim what works and what doesn't? Different firewood types have different combustion characteristics, which anyone who has used several different wood types will tell you.




Whitespider said:


> Sure you have... you just ain't listening.
> Because of a more _constant_ and _steady_ heat output over the entire burn cycle... which... is... "_better_"... in... certain... situations.



Which you have provided no evidence for. The older stove types have the same rise and fall in heat output as a newer stove because of the nature of a batch burn process. Your claim I haven't been listening is just more obfuscation to cover up the fact that you haven't made a solid argument here.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> I've started my frill and smoker more than once on live coals out of my PE. I guess you have to find your silver linings where you can. LMAO
> 
> Or a sign of insufficient airflow/fuel where they're getting smothered. They hey to the fire triangle is having enough fuel, heat and oxygen to burn (and then to regulate the efficiency of burn thereafter). If the air and air/fuel ratio is out of spec with it's relationship to the heat, the fire suffers. I think that after the secondary dies, the airflow to the bottom isn't enough for the remaining fuel quantity to burn efficiently/properly resulting in charcoal or what the pellet stove guys call clinkers (albeit via a different process).



Clinkers are a different process, clinkers are caused by localized high temperatures that cause the incombustable portions of the wood (ash) to fuse together.


----------



## slowp (Dec 14, 2014)

I see the problem. WS, you seem to have forgotten something I recall you posting on one of the other lengthy, I Hate My Stove threads about your start up procedure. You were doing it like you have written. However, later you read the instructions and found out that you needed to move the air control to high and then pull it back a bit to start up the stove. That's the procedure for my Elitist, communist, beyond EPA stove. Mine has a little picture at the place you put the lever. Perhaps yours is missing that so it causes you to forget?


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*The older stove types have the same rise and fall in heat output as a newer stove because of the nature of a batch burn process.*_


The same?? Really??
Not the ones I have and have had... not anywhere near as dramatic.



Locust Cutter said:


> _*Are those the settings or the registering temps? A 1° isn't bad.*_


Those are the actuall temperature the thermometer is reading... right now the top thermostat "set point" is 68°, the bottom one is 60° I believe.
Yeah, 1° ain't bad... but they've come to an agreement.
And it's a bit warm in here again...


----------



## Del_ (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> The same?? Really??
> Not the ones I have and have had... not anywhere near as dramatic.



All of the old smoke dragons I've operated over the years had very similar heating curves as the modern more efficient stoves except for the peak from secondary combustion that takes place in the more efficient stoves. The smoke dragons just send the unburnt pyrolytic gasses up the flue forming a combination of creosote and air pollution.

For us the extra heat in the living space is a nice bonus along with having a great fire view. We also cook and heat water for doing dishes on the stove top.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 14, 2014)

Del_ said:


> All of the old smoke dragons I've operated over the years had very similar heating curves as the modern more efficient stoves except for the peak from secondary combustion that takes place in the more efficient stoves. The smoke dragons just send the unburnt pyrolytic gasses up the flue forming a combination of creosote and air pollution.
> 
> For us the extra heat in the living space is a nice bonus along with having a great fire view. We also cook and heat water for doing dishes on the stove top.
> 
> ...


Yep, even the baby stove is blasting us out today. I shoveled a little ash out of it today, and left the few coals that were in it there. Nice secondary burn. Just a couple of 14" ash splits.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> The same?? Really??
> Not the ones I have and have had... not anywhere near as dramatic.



The curves will not likely be identical stove to stove, but the output curves will be a similar shape and the peak of the heat will come during the peak burn cycle prior to all the volatiles being driven from the wood. So yes a traditional stove and a modern staged combustion stove are going to have almost the same shape output curves when loaded with the same volume of wood. The area under the curve when you map heat output over time is going to be higher for the staged stove because the combustion is more efficient. You haven't seen the same dramatic rise with the older stove type because they are less efficient and more heat is lost up the flue. If you were to calculate output over time between a modern and an older stove, the newer stove will make more efficient use of the same mass of wood.

If you were to vary the air input with automatic control you could flatten the curve some but you're still not going to get a constant output with a batch process. This is thermodynamics and heat transfer 101.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*...efficient. ...efficient... ...calculate output over time... ...efficient...*_


The efficiency argument is lost I me... which efficiency are you meaning??
Combustion efficiency??
Total heat output over the entire burn cycle??
Per hour heat output??

We're talkin' about a heater... it's the per hour output that matters (to me). If fuel load remains the same, and you double the burn cycle to output 25% more heat, you lower the per hour heat output. That ain't "heating" efficient in my mind...
The "heating" efficiency of most any other heating appliance is on a per hour bases. For example; a gas furnace rated at 90,000 BTU per hour (of run time) at 85% efficiency, will output 76,500 BTUs per hour of run time. In other words, fuel input _and_ combustion efficiency is used to calculate per hour output. Two furnaces, both rated at 90,000 BTUs, one at 85% efficiency and the other at 90% efficiency... the 90% efficient furnace will output more heat per hour of run time.

But wood fired appliances are not efficiency rated on a per hour basis... they ain't even efficiency rated on heat output. It's simply ratio of fuel input to un-burned mass in the exhaust... over the entire burn cycle, _regardless of how long that entire burn cycle may be_. So the efficiency argument is lost on me, unless you provide a whole lot more information... a whole lot more‼

I've said this before...
My old pickup will get 45 MPG... if I drive it 10 MPH‼ That's pretty fuel efficient, but ain't a very efficient way to travel.
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> The efficiency argument is lost I me... which efficiency are you meaning??
> Combustion efficiency??
> Total heat output over the entire burn cycle??
> Per hour heat output??
> ...



Efficiency is measured in heat output versus fuel input.

Per hour heat output has nothing to do with efficiency, that is power or rate of doing work as you said.

I agree with the idea that wood appliances aren't typically rated on steady heat output and that is something the wood stove industry should work on, however given the uncertain nature of wood that is not unexpected. If you properly size a newer advanced combustion system to the application, it is going to have enough output (power) to heat the space and it will consume less wood than the older technology for the same total heat output.

Your entire argument is based on utilizing a stove for a purpose for which it was not intended. You claim the efficiency argument is lost on you without more information which is exactly the point I was making about your claims with the newer wood stoves. You have provided no data to support your assertions, you have simply asserted they are true.

I doubt your old pickup will get 45MPG if you drive it 10MPH unless you have a go-kart motor in it or possibly if it's a diesel and you're on flat ground.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2014)

Cerran said:


> _*You have provided no data to support your assertions...*_


Ummmm..... where's your "data"??
But yes... I used the wrong wording when I posted, "_In other words, fuel input and combustion efficiency is used to calculate per hour output._"
It should have been, fuel input and heat output (and/or heat lost through the stack) is used to calculate efficiency... but the BTU value is stated/listed/advertized/marketed/etc. on a per hour basis. None of that changes the point I was making... regardless of the fuel mileage my pickup gets at 10 MPH 
*


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Ummmm..... where's your "data"??
> But yes... I used the wrong wording when I posted, "_In other words, fuel input and combustion efficiency is used to calculate per hour output._"
> It should have been, fuel input and heat output (and/or heat lost through the stack) is used to calculate efficiency... but the BTU value is stated/listed/advertized/marketed/etc. on a per hour basis. None of that changes the point I was making... regardless of the fuel mileage my pickup gets at 10 MPH
> *



And the older stoves put more flow and total BTU's out the stack per unit wood burned (not to mention unburned hydrocarbons).


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 14, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> It should have been, fuel input and heat output (and/or heat lost through the stack) is used to calculate efficiency... but the BTU value is stated/listed/advertized/marketed/etc. on a per hour basis.


The combustion efficiency is how much of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted and sent into the room - there is no time term in the equation at all and it therefore cannot be converted into a _rate_. 

The energy output rate manufacturers list is a separate spec and cannot be compared to the efficiency rating. It is also likely a peak output, and will not hold true over the entire burn time as Cerran pointed out earlier. It might not even last for an hour, as I could calculate BTU/hr over a 5min period. Or it could be total BS because it isn't 3rd party tested and there is no truth in advertising.


----------



## Locust Cutter (Dec 14, 2014)

To the one point Cerran made, what do you do when you've bought one of the largest stoves on the market and you still come up short, especially in regards to the Mfct's stated heat capabilities in regards to area? When the company says 2-3,000sqft and it doesn't affect 1,000 the way I'm looking for leaves me a bit more than disappointed.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2014)

Locust Cutter said:


> To the one point Cerran made, what do you do when you've bought one of the largest stoves on the market and you still come up short, especially in regards to the Mfct's stated heat capabilities in regards to area? When the company says 2-3,000sqft and it doesn't affect 1,000 the way I'm looking for leaves me a bit more than disappointed.



Then I would think something is wrong. 

Also remember that the manufacturers rating is also based on a well insulated house and a specific exterior temperature.


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 14, 2014)

Then you must have a poorly insulated house because my Pacific Energy Fusion is rated for 1200-2000 sq ft. I heat our 3300 sq ft house without a problem unless it's well below zero outside. We have lots of open space on both floors so I'm sure that helps and some big south facing windows which doesn't hurt. My experience with this stove has been nothing but smiles!


----------



## cmsmoke (Dec 14, 2014)

Groundhogs day, over and over and over.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2014)

cmsmoke said:


> _*Groundhogs day, over and over and over.*_


Yeah... no kiddin'... same ol', same ol'... day in, day out.

And here's the proof...


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... no kiddin'... same ol', same ol'... day in, day out.
> 
> And here's the proof...
> 
> ...


Why do you keep posting pictures of the thermostat connected to your wood furnace, as if it were relevant in a discussion about the differences between two types of wood stove? Are you intentionally trying to bury a discussion in which your arguments have been shown to be false? 

All you are "proving" is that heating systems exist that can hold a house at a steady temperature in mild weather - while utterly failing to support your contention concerning what is wrong with secondary combustion wood stoves and why they cannot be used to heat a house. 

My house was about 75deg yesterday, all on a couple of tiny splits in a secondary combustion stove with a 1.34 cu. ft. firebox.


----------



## mn woodcutter (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... no kiddin'... same ol', same ol'... day in, day out.
> 
> And here's the proof...
> 
> ...


Hahaha. It's spring time weather right now! I've had windows open for the last couple days!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Why do you keep posting pictures of the thermostat connected to your wood furnace...*_
> _*My house was about 75deg yesterday, all on a couple of tiny splits...*_


Truthfully, the last time I added fuel to the box was 45 hours ago, a couple splits on Saturday just after lunch... the box is stone-cold dead.
The "furnace" wasn't the point... I was responding to the Groundhogs Day thing.
Why would you have a fire if your house was 75°??

Likely I'll start a small (real small) fire before turnin' in tonight, the warm spell is gonna' come to a quick end overnight... mid-20's by mornin' and holdin' steady all day with 25-30 MPH NW winds, mid-teens by the next mornin' and barley breakin' 20° that day, we ain't supposed to even see 30° all week.
This short spring was nice... but winter is comin' back.
*


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Mine's been so full they fall out when ya' open the door
> 
> Once those coals ash-over, very little air can get to 'em... the heat output virtually ends. If a' don't keep stirring 'em every 10 minutes or so, they just die out and ya' end up shoveling a bucket load of charcoal chunks out the next day. And stirring 'em just mixes 'em with ash, which makes it even harder to burn 'em up. It's a lose-lose proposition... either freeze your azz off while you're screwin' 'round for 3 hours trying to burn the coals up, or just bite the bullet and toss out a bucket load of unburnt fuel. I got sick of screwin' 'round... I just toss the coals out.
> 
> ...




I don't know about anyone else but if I had to babysit the wood burner as your describing I would get rid of the POS. Seems like they have designed it (or lack of design) to make only the retired, "oh I have nothing else to do" segment of society a customer prospect. How in the world could a person use it for a primary heat source if you had to sit and tend it? Unless it's designed for those who don't work or have a life?


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Why would you have a fire if your house was 75°??


Perhaps the same reason you ran your stove in your shop when it was 40°? Except that my smaller stove worked just fine.



fixit1960 said:


> Seems like they have designed it (or lack of design) to make only the retired, "oh I have nothing else to do" segment of society a customer prospect. How in the world could a person use it for a primary heat source if you had to sit and tend it? Unless it's designed for those who don't work or have a life?


Interesting presumptions. Perhaps the fact that I am not retired and we using secondary combustion wood stoves as our only source of heat would show that they are false. We have no back up system at all.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 15, 2014)

fixit1960 said:


> I don't know about anyone else but if I had to babysit the wood burner as your describing I would get rid of the POS. Seems like they have designed it (or lack of design) to make only the retired, "oh I have nothing else to do" segment of society a customer prospect. How in the world could a person use it for a primary heat source if you had to sit and tend it? Unless it's designed for those who don't work or have a life?



WS's experience seems pretty atypical based on the feedback here and on the hearth boards. My experience in helping with 7 installations of wood stoves (cat and non cat versions) is that the modern stoves output the same amount of heat or more for generally less wood. How much is debatable but I would say on average 20-30% less wood.

The biggest complaint I have heard from people who switched is that the new stoves don't turn down as far as their old stove which is true, a minimum air level is set to prevent choking the fire down too much.

My experience says that cat stoves are the way to go if you want maximum burn time, and non cat stoves are the way to go if you want a more simple operation. Or as in my case the quad was one of the few stoves approved for a factory-built fireplace install.

That being said, there does seem to be a problem with certain stove models and coal buildup over time which may or may not be wood dependent. Since there is no good data as to these installations their location, chimney height, or good wood data diagnosing whether it's the stove itself or how they are being operated is impossible.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 15, 2014)

fixit1960 said:


> I don't know about anyone else but if I had to babysit the wood burner as your describing I would get rid of the POS. Seems like they have designed it (or lack of design) to make only the retired, "oh I have nothing else to do" segment of society a customer prospect. How in the world could a person use it for a primary heat source if you had to sit and tend it? Unless it's designed for those who don't work or have a life?



I hear a lot of positive praise about the EPA stoves from the warmer climate folks and I concur, especially when it's milder here. Spider has a valid point as well and I second his opinion from personal experience. One thing I've noticed is I haven't seen a lot of the Canada boys on here talking about how good their secondary burn stove is. Prolly because it's colder up there than it is here and to make it work well you have to burn a lot more wood in the cold.


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 15, 2014)

513yj said:


> I hear a lot of positive praise about the EPA stoves from the warmer climate folks and I concur, especially when it's milder here. Spider has a valid point as well and I second his opinion from personal experience. One thing I've noticed is I haven't seen a lot of the Canada boys on here talking about how good their secondary burn stove is. Prolly because it's colder up there than it is here and to make it work well you have to burn a lot more wood in the cold.




I agree somewhat with both your and Cerrans response to my comment. My issue is that the EPA will regulate away the ability to purchase and run the "old style" before all the bugs are worked out of the new design EPA approved models. I don't believe in the climate change theory and don't have concerns about "wood economy". I burn scrap pallet wood for the most part in an OWB that is 1/4 mile from my nearest neighbor, I have a 30 ft stack and in 15 years no one has ever commented on the smoke output it has when cycling the first 4 or 5 times after filling. When I have to replace mine in 5 or 15 years I would like to have the same choices (or more) that I had 15 years ago when I bought this one. In the warmer, milder climate the new style may work fine and be everything that they are said to be, but in the colder climates where I feel they are needed more, if they will not perform correctly I don't feel as if I should be forced into the purchase of one. Here again my fear is the government telling me what my choices are because someone thinks they know my situation better than I do.

My Heatmore distributor told me that next years models similar to what I have will come with a modified upper pass which will be basically tubes instead of an open area the length of the fire box. These tubes will collect particulate which will require shutting down periodically depending on the type of wood and the moisture content in order to scrub the tubes clean. Not very user friendly. I can't wait until it's -15 and a 30 mile an hour wind out of the north and I have a shop full of work and the upper pass plugs.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 15, 2014)

fixit1960 said:


> My Heatmore distributor told me that next years models similar to what I have will come with a modified upper pass which will be basically tubes instead of an open area the length of the fire box. These tubes will collect particulate which will require shutting down periodically depending on the type of wood and the moisture content in order to scrub the tubes clean. Not very user friendly. I can't wait until it's -15 and a 30 mile an hour wind out of the north and I have a shop full of work and the upper pass plugs.


I'm somewhat skeptical that this is a good description of how this will work - I don't see how tubes would be made to collect particulates. It sounds more like they would add secondary burn tubes as in many stoves, which are tubes that have small holes allowing fresh air to be introduced into the top of the firebox to burn the particulates. This reduces output of particulates and converts it to energy. I certainly could be wrong though as I can't know what they might be developing.


----------



## cmsmoke (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Yeah... no kiddin'... same ol', same ol'... day in, day out.
> 
> And here's the proof...
> 
> ...


That wasn't the intent of my reply...There is only one FL here and it's not me.


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 15, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> I'm somewhat skeptical that this is a good description of how this will work - I don't see how tubes would be made to collect particulates. It sounds more like they would add secondary burn tubes as in many stoves, which are tubes that have small holes allowing fresh air to be introduced into the top of the firebox to burn the particulates. This reduces output of particulates and converts it to energy. I certainly could be wrong though as I can't know what they might be developing.


I like you idea better but have no way of knowing other than what the dealer told me. That would make sense and they use forced air combustion so it could be done that way easy enough. When I asked him the purpose of the tubes he said to collect particulate. My response was what happens when it is full, and he said you shut it down enough to clean it. Maybe I wasn't getting the full story from him. He did mention that the person he was talking to (factory rep/dealer) indicated it would not tolerate green or wet would very welll after the design change. That leads me to believe it isn't a secondary burn as with the forced air and enough heat, plugging would not be problem. I'm not in the market for a new OWB so I never pursued it. Just relaying what I was told.


----------



## Oxford (Dec 15, 2014)

Those tubes are going to plug. I don't know why they're adding them, but there are only two reasons. Either they're trying to extract more heat from the flue gases by adding tubes, thereby improving the technology from the 1650's to the 1850's, or they're adding tubes to catch particulates by increasing surface area contact of the flue gases, basically encouraging sooting as a pollution control method. In a gas or oil fired boiler, sooting is to be avoided at all costs as an indication of bad combustion tuning, but since the outdoor boilers have terrible combustion tuning by default, this could be a really bad, cynical way of trying to improve their flue emissions. It's not the four or five times a day the thing goes to high fire, it's the 20 hours a day that it's the combustion equivalent of a tire fire that are the problem. Increasing exhaust path length, coupled with really low velocity since the blower won't be running during those times, might encourage the particulate matter to just fall out of the air stream.


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 15, 2014)

Oxford said:


> Those tubes are going to plug. I don't know why they're adding them, but there are only two reasons. Either they're trying to extract more heat from the flue gases by adding tubes, thereby improving the technology from the 1650's to the 1850's, or they're adding tubes to catch particulates by increasing surface area contact of the flue gases, basically encouraging sooting as a pollution control method. In a gas or oil fired boiler, sooting is to be avoided at all costs as an indication of bad combustion tuning, but since the outdoor boilers have terrible combustion tuning by default, this could be a really bad, cynical way of trying to improve their flue emissions. It's not the four or five times a day the thing goes to high fire, it's the 20 hours a day that it's the combustion equivalent of a tire fire that are the problem. Increasing exhaust path length, coupled with really low velocity since the blower won't be running during those times, might encourage the particulate matter to just fall out of the air stream.



I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the 20 hrs a day the combustion is equivalent of a tire fire". After the initial 4 or 5 cycles my stack output is un-noticeable. It does not resemble a tire fire. When my boiler cycles off when up to temp the fans shut off and the blower adapter doors drop sealing off the fire box. 1850's technology? You evidently have not seen one in operation. In any case it's worked fine for me for 15 years, It heats my 2000 sq ft home built in 1897 and my work shop that is 45x54. 

Evidently you are a believer in climate change.........


----------



## Oxford (Dec 15, 2014)

As it happens, I do believe in climate change. I also heat my home with wood via a non-EPA stove, so I'm not on any moral high ground in that regard. I also applaud you for at least having the decency to raise your stack, meaning that more people downwind get to breathe less of your smoke.

You don't see anything out your stack because nobody can see what's coming out your stack, but it is absolutely the case that your boiler is dumping particulate (and other) emissions to atmosphere. I have witnessed many, many industrial burners that have essentially zero visible emissions fail emissions testing miserably. Seeing it is not a meaningful test.

As to the technology, all the outdoor hydronic heaters (they aren't boilers) are essentially a fire under a kettle. They are miserably inefficient, in no small part because they don't shut off, regardless of how tight the door shuts, because they have no means to reignite. Between times of high fire, they smolder, and that's when the emissions go crazy. They are also massively oversized for the typical load people put on them, your example to the contrary. I imagine yours actually does run pretty well, because the load is more suitable to the burner.

By adding tubes, which most of the boiler manufacturers did in the mid 19th century, the manufacturers are making a quantum leap forward.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> _*Perhaps the same reason you ran your stove in your shop when it was 40°?*_


Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.



cmsmoke said:


> _*That wasn't the intent of my reply...There is only one FL...*_


I know that wasn't your intent... your intent had nothing to do with mine.

FL?? I'm drawin' a blank. Flat-Lander?? Free-Loader?? Feline-Lover?? Furnace-Loader??
Oh‼ Now I see‼ Naughty-naughty... no name callin'.
Really though, if'n you're gonna' call someone a lier, you should be able to back it up with something hard-fast... and you ain't, and weren't here, so you can't know sour owl squat. But, whatever makes your owl crap.
*


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 15, 2014)

Burning wood, even inefficiently, has little impact on climate change, as all the carbon in the wood was taken from the environment (mostly the atmosphere) in recent decades and so releasing it has no net impact in this period. Even if it isn't burned most of it will reenter the atmosphere anyway. Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years as fossil fuels is the problem. 



Whitespider said:


> Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
> The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.



Actually you said the ambient was 40°, which is warmer than it was here. But you don't live in the shop, and we were both burning on a mild day for the same reason - because it wasn't quite warm enough.


----------



## Oxford (Dec 15, 2014)

Chris-PA said:


> Burning wood, even inefficiently, has little impact on climate change, as all the carbon in the wood was taken from the environment (mostly the atmosphere) in recent decades and so releasing it has no net impact in this period. Even if it isn't burned most of it will reenter the atmosphere anyway. Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years as fossil fuels is the problem.



I absolutely agree, and I should have stated that more clearly. I do think we have a responsibility, if for no other reason than common human decency, to not make our neighbors' lives miserable as a result of our choices, and not filling their houses full of smoke falls under that heading, to me at least.


----------



## cmsmoke (Dec 15, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
> The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.
> 
> 
> ...


When did I call you a "lier" spelled liar, your welcome! My intent was I heard your story many times. Give it a rest. I don't want to know sour owl squat, whatever that may be.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2014)

cmsmoke said:


> _*When did I call you a "lier" spelled liar, your welcome!*_


Yes... thank you... I appreciate the spelling correction.
Now let me return the favor and correct your punctuation... you need a question mark (?) somewhere in there.

So then, just in case it comes up again, what did/does "*FL*" stand for?? Florescent Lamp?? Fat Lady?? Forgotten Love?? Forever lost??
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2014)

I ain't buyin' the "carbon neutral" theory of burning wood.

Burning wood releases carbon in a matter of minutes that took years or decades to sequester. Decomposition, unlike burning, may take decades, and may not result in a complete release of carbon into the atmosphere. Acidic soil can inhibit complete decay. Accumulation on top of downed wood can eventually compress it into the subsoil, eventually causing much of it to become humus, which is stable and doesn't break down further. All sorts of flora and fauna live in/on decaying trees, consuming and using the carbon which may be passed onto other life forms through consumption and so forth... carbon that never enters the atmosphere "in this period." Decomposition enriches the soil, promoting more and faster flora based growth... which would sequester more carbon "in this period." More and faster flora growth promotes more and faster fauna growth... also carbon based. And... well... enough for now...

I ain't buyin' the "carbon neutral" theory of burning wood... the idea "it has no net impact in this period" seems ridiculous to me.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2014)

Oh... not that it matters anyway.
I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact.
*


----------



## blacklocst (Dec 16, 2014)

Whitespider said:


> Oh... not that it matters anyway.
> I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact.
> *


How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?


----------



## Tonyd56 (Dec 16, 2014)

WS, I think yours is a misunderstanding of the effect of carbon decay over a period of geological time. You're correct in arguing that wood burnt in hours releases the same amount of carbon that decay would release over decades, but when you consider the proportion these emissions make of worldwide carbon emissions, statistically speaking, "no net impact in this period" is not at all outlandish, and certainly not as far fetched as denying anthropogenic climate change outright. 

"Oh... not that it matters anyway.
I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact."

This seems a tad contradictory coming just one post after a soliloquy on your disbelief that burning wood could be carbon neutral.


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 16, 2014)




----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2014)

blacklocst said:


> _*How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?*_


Air pollution (or any pollution) is relative... I've never argued it doesn't exist, I've argued a one-size-fits-all approach (example; EPA regulations) are flat silly.



Tonyd56 said:


> _*WS, I think yours is a misunderstanding of the effect of carbon decay over a period of geological time. ...statistically speaking, "no net impact in this period" is not at all outlandish, and certainly not as far fetched as denying anthropogenic climate change outright.*_


Anthropogenic climate change is a theory and nothing more... denying that is outlandish.



Tonyd56 said:


> _*...seems a tad contradictory coming just one post after a soliloquy on your disbelief that burning wood could be carbon neutral.*_


Not really contradictory at all when taken in context.
I believe the anthropogenic climate change _theory_ is based in _truths_ (or facts) _arranged_ in such a way to fit the _assumptions_, and therefore support the _theory_. I see the idea that burning wood is somehow "carbon neutral", as just _re-arrangement_. I was just pointing out that, in my mind, it's akin to "having it both ways".
Either the burning of carbon based fuels is contributing to anthropogenic climate change during this period (how long is this period?)... or it isn't... you can't have it both ways. I don't buy any of it... especially when I see double-standard reasoning.

Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong?? No it don't.
But it don't mean you're right and I'm wrong either.
It's all _theory_... which is interesting to contemplate... but...
*


----------



## 513yj (Dec 16, 2014)

blacklocst said:


> How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?



Your friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are _sold_ by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.


----------



## Tonyd56 (Dec 16, 2014)

"I see the idea that burning wood issomehow "carbon neutral", as just _re-arrangement_. I was justpointing out that, in my mind, it's akin to "having it both ways".
Either the burning of carbon based fuels is contributing to anthropogenic climate change during this period (how long is this period?)... or it isn't... you can't have it both ways. I don't buy any of it... especially when I see double-standard reasoning."

And I see your picking at the "wood burning being carbon neutral" idea as a way for you to question the validity of global warming without actually questioning it. You're right in a sense that wood burning would contribute to a net increase in carbon emissions, for aforementioned reasons. But again, Chris and Oxford are also quite right in saying that wood burning is effectively carbon neutral, because the aforementioned net effect is so statistically minuscule, that it cannot reasonably be considered a driver of global warming. As to your point about "having it both ways," the fact is, there is data that supports both the idea that anthropogenic global warming exists, and that wood burning is statistically no part of it. Interpretation of said data is open to debate, as is all data, but the argument that many who deny climate change make is one based upon agreement of like minded individuals on the non apparent visible effects of climate change, and the economic detriment of addressing climate change, as opposed to skeptical scrutinizing of available date through a lens of understanding the scientific principles involved. For those of us (like myself admittedly) who lack this understanding, we have to rely on the perspective of other learned people. I am more willing to accept the views of renowned scientists, with the attitude that they could be wrong, than I am to accept the ideas of opponents, whose argument largely boils down to "You're really going to spend money on a muffler so the global warming fairy doesn't kill your kids?"


----------



## Tonyd56 (Dec 16, 2014)

BTW WS, I appreciate your passion on this issue, even if this forum does get a little noisy from time to time.


----------



## Chris-PA (Dec 16, 2014)

513yj said:


> it's all about money, period.


Yes, it is all about the money. This the US in 2014 - everything is all about the money, in every quarter 24/7. It's who we are.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2014)

Tonyd56 said:


> _*And I see your picking at the "wood burning being carbon neutral" idea as a way for you to question the validity of global warming without actually questioning it.*_


Naaaa... I just remain unconvinced... nothing more than that.
I remain unconvinced about a lot of things... I'm naturally skeptical I reckon.
*


----------



## olyman (Dec 16, 2014)

513yj said:


> Your friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are _sold_ by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.


hot rod, did a article, about this very thing about 5 yrs ago....seems this air polluting corp, would buy your "polluting" car from you, for 200 smacks, to get "air" credits[what a scam], then CRUSH the car right there on the property!!! so hot rod,, met some folks,, before they got on the jackasses property...they bought a 66 stang,,and a 67 maro,,for that 200 clams each.... they took em to where they work on em,, did a major tuneup, and both passed emissions testing, with flying colors!!! corporations don't lie,,, why, who ever think such??? and the gov is in on the scam...spose they resold those ca cars for much??? uh huh.... gov lying to the public,,, AGAIN!!!


----------



## blacklocst (Dec 17, 2014)

513yj said:


> You're friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are _sold_ by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.


If you're taking about Cap and Trade it still limits the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.The loops holes are there to protect polluters who have trouble meeting the standards. Never said the EPA was perfect.


----------



## 513yj (Dec 17, 2014)

blacklocst said:


> If you're taking about Cap and Trade it still limits the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.The loops holes are there to protect polluters who have trouble meeting the standards. Never said the EPA was perfect.



No it is not Cap and Trade. They outright sell the ability to major corporations to pollute more than typically allotted for normal companies. There is not a large number of these sales but they are still in place. Nobody ever claimed you said the EPA was perfect but the fact is they are a government agency and therefore inherently corrupted by money. Big dollars will get them the right to be exempt from the standards set for all of us normal people. That is where my problem with many things government begins.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 17, 2014)

olyman said:


> hot rod, did a article, about this very thing about 5 yrs ago....seems this air polluting corp, would buy your "polluting" car from you, for 200 smacks, to get "air" credits[what a scam], then CRUSH the car right there on the property!!! so hot rod,, met some folks,, before they got on the jackasses property...they bought a 66 stang,,and a 67 maro,,for that 200 clams each.... they took em to where they work on em,, did a major tuneup, and both passed emissions testing, with flying colors!!! corporations don't lie,,, why, who ever think such??? and the gov is in on the scam...spose they resold those ca cars for much??? uh huh.... gov lying to the public,,, AGAIN!!!



Neither car would pass a modern emission test and both cars would be exempt from testing and I doubt anyone would sell a 67 Camaro or 66 Mustang for 200 bucks.

I assume you may be talking about this one:

http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1501-1967-chevrolet-chevelle-saved-from-the-crusher/

or this one.

http://www.hotrod.com/events/coverage/hrdp-1105-crusher-camaro-road-trip/

However in this case the chevelle had no engine, had been tubbed and needed everything. Hardly something that just needed a tuneup. The camaro was completely rebuilt with a different engine.


----------



## kodiak (Dec 17, 2014)

olyman said:


> hot rod, did a article, about this very thing about 5 yrs ago....seems this air polluting corp, would buy your "polluting" car from you, for 200 smacks, to get "air" credits[what a scam], then CRUSH the car right there on the property!!! so hot rod,, met some folks,, before they got on the jackasses property...they bought a 66 stang,,and a 67 maro,,for that 200 clams each.... they took em to where they work on em,, did a major tuneup, and both passed emissions testing, with flying colors!!! corporations don't lie,,, why, who ever think such??? and the gov is in on the scam...spose they resold those ca cars for much??? uh huh.... gov lying to the public,,, AGAIN!!!


Umm, yeahhhh, OK. So you got a link to this "article"? Referencing something you heard from your buddy at the coffee shop doesn't count.


----------



## fixit1960 (Dec 26, 2014)

blacklocst said:


> If you're taking about Cap and Trade it still limits the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.The loops holes are there to protect polluters who have trouble meeting the standards. Never said the EPA was perfect.



I work for a coal fired electric generation site owned by the City. We have discussed the Cap and Trade issue at length. It picks an arbitrary amount of pollutants given off by the boiler and sets the allowable limit at say 60% of that amount. (where do they get these figures? out of thin air) Anything over that and you have to purchase credits from someone else or the open market. Yes there will be a trading venue for these. If you don't want t0 purchase credits you can spend millions or in some cases hundreds of millions to try and reduce your emissions. In the meantime all these costs are passed onto the consumer. The fines (credits ) are nothing more than a punitive fine. It is not used by the government for research to try and develop a cleaner means of production (unless you consider things like the Solyndra debacle as a credible attempt to actually make a cleaner substitute). And if you consider that there are a lot of us, including more and more scientist, who argue that climate change is a pipe dream then what is this all for; more control of the economy by the government.

We were also told that a certain amount of these credits would be extended to 3rd world countries that sign onto the climate change , one world agenda, United Nations global exchange program. Most don't even have the type of boilers under review here in the US. But they get credits to sell on the open market...

There rant over, I feel a little better....I think..


----------

