Yep... that there is exactly what is happening.
And described in a lot few words than I used also
Last edited:
A better explanation...
- Thread starter Whitespider
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Yep... that there is exactly what is happening.
And described in a lot few words than I used also
Ya know...
That reminds me of one of the things I tried that actually made things worse.
I closed of the little "boost air" hole that brings a small amount of air in at the bottom... effectively stopping any and all air from reaching the bottom of the fire box. When I did that I would find complete splits under the coal bed, slightly blackened but totally unburnt. I thought about opening it a bit more after that... but it's an unregulated opening and I was afraid it would make the fire uncontrollable.
That reminds me of one of the things I tried that actually made things worse.
I closed of the little "boost air" hole that brings a small amount of air in at the bottom... effectively stopping any and all air from reaching the bottom of the fire box. When I did that I would find complete splits under the coal bed, slightly blackened but totally unburnt. I thought about opening it a bit more after that... but it's an unregulated opening and I was afraid it would make the fire uncontrollable.
Those little holes are called the 'Pilot' and they are there to... you guessed it... Improve EPA rating. You cant leave the door open more than 5 minutes according to EPA rules. So when you close the door you choke the fire and bust your test due to lack of oxygen.
So most MFG came with this workaround in order to provide more oxygen for testing.
I've blocked mine. Because of my overdraft my pilot was drilling a big hole in the bottom log.
You're not listening Del... I've been screwing around with this thing for over two months.
Disconnecting the secondary from the primary requires cutting holes in the ash drawer, because all the linkage is inside it under the stove. I did disconnect it as an experiment, and getting the two of them set to the correct balance was a continuous job as the fire burned. The better option was exactly what I did... adjust the secondary linkage so it was closed further (relative to the primary). Like I said, it helped some... until it got really, really cold out. The problem is this stove (and I suspect most EPA stoves because of the multiple air inlets) is designed to work a certain "way" under certain conditions. Changing those "ways" just creates other issues... sort'a the snowball effect. My draft is wicked excessive for this stove, it can only be made to work better for specific atmospheric conditions... but when those conditions change it all flies out the window. That's what I've been fighting... what works with today's conditions likely won't work with tomorrow's. It's enough to drive a fella' to drink!
Disconnecting the secondary from the primary requires cutting holes in the ash drawer, because all the linkage is inside it under the stove. I did disconnect it as an experiment, and getting the two of them set to the correct balance was a continuous job as the fire burned. The better option was exactly what I did... adjust the secondary linkage so it was closed further (relative to the primary). Like I said, it helped some... until it got really, really cold out. The problem is this stove (and I suspect most EPA stoves because of the multiple air inlets) is designed to work a certain "way" under certain conditions. Changing those "ways" just creates other issues... sort'a the snowball effect. My draft is wicked excessive for this stove, it can only be made to work better for specific atmospheric conditions... but when those conditions change it all flies out the window. That's what I've been fighting... what works with today's conditions likely won't work with tomorrow's. It's enough to drive a fella' to drink!
Last edited:
Mine has a baffle in front of it with 5 smaller holes in it, so it spreads the air out across the floor of the firebox.
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
[. It's enough to drive a fella' to drink![/QUOTE]
I'm game, whiskey it is.
I'm game, whiskey it is.
I've done that...
I've come to the conclusion that the next "fix" would be to place a "restriction plate" in the top of the chimney (also one of the options Gulland offered)...
Sorry, that's not an option I'm feeling comfortable with currently... to difficult and inconvenient to "undo" if it don't work also.
I'll just install the DAKA this spring and haul my nightmare out to the shop.
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
I had to do that on mine, installed a reducer 6 to 4. Helped some, basically allowed the stove not to melt. Then when the temps rose to 30-40*. A cold stove was imposable to lite. Basement full of smoke.
Yep, stihly dan, that there is my fear with installing a restriction plate.
zogger
Tree Freak
You need a secondary heat exchanger*** below X degrees, whatever works. For that you would need a temperature controlled exhaust diverter. (or just do it manually) Warmer temps, straight out, as it is installed now, you say the stove works well then, then when colder, diverted through the secondary (to slow it down and extract heat without starving the stove) before it hits the chimney.
***I can think off several ways to go there, and I know you can too.
***I can think off several ways to go there, and I know you can too.
OK - I am totally intrigued and ccontinue to follow this thread hoping to here some magic solution for the Spider.
If this has been tried or there is some engineering fopa that I am not understanding just poo poo the idea but how about DBL pipe flu dampers set oposite so the air flow has to do an "S" to get around them. This way in the deep cold you could have "some" more control over the super draft and run them wide open during the shoulder season.
May take 3 but at least it is an inexpensive option??
Just trying to think outside the box - there has to be a solution to the super draft.
If this has been tried or there is some engineering fopa that I am not understanding just poo poo the idea but how about DBL pipe flu dampers set oposite so the air flow has to do an "S" to get around them. This way in the deep cold you could have "some" more control over the super draft and run them wide open during the shoulder season.
May take 3 but at least it is an inexpensive option??
Just trying to think outside the box - there has to be a solution to the super draft.
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
I installed a magic heat in the flu as well. Got a lot of heat out of that. It also aided in restriction. The problem with the whole thing is when you have a hot chimney, the draft continues to increase. increasing fire temps, heating chimnet even more. So air has to be dampered, but as the chimney cools, the air slows. causing the chimney to get colder, slowing the air more. You could make the stove work great if you stood there 24-7 making slight adjustments as things changed.
A tale of 2 fires
I think this is as close to a real world apples to apple comparison as possible.
My mother-in-law lives across the road from us. We both have EPA Pacific Energy mid size stoves. We both heat similar size houses, approx. 1200 sq. ft. We both have stoves on the first floor and both burn the same wood (I cut for both houses). Winter daytime temps here are usually around 14F, we have cold snaps down to -25F and warm spells up to around freezing. We burn steadily from mid-October to mid-April, January and February being the coldest time. Our house, built early 1900s was totally renovated 6 years ago and very well air sealed and insulated. In-laws house was built in the 1980s and is poorly insulated. We burn a bit over 2 cord a year, I empty the ash every 3 weeks or so and it is just ash. MIL burns over 5 cord a year, shovels out a bucket of coals and ash once or twice a week, in really cold spells she shovels out coals daily to make room for more wood. Our place is always comfortably warm. Her house is usually either hot or cold.
The stoves must be performing similarly, but in our case the performance is satisfactory for our heat requirement, for my MIL the performance cannot keep up with the heat requirement. Needless to say, I am very pleased with the EPA stove, my MIL, less so.
This does not give an answer to Whitespider's problem, but it does show how different performance can be for 2 very similar users.
I think this is as close to a real world apples to apple comparison as possible.
My mother-in-law lives across the road from us. We both have EPA Pacific Energy mid size stoves. We both heat similar size houses, approx. 1200 sq. ft. We both have stoves on the first floor and both burn the same wood (I cut for both houses). Winter daytime temps here are usually around 14F, we have cold snaps down to -25F and warm spells up to around freezing. We burn steadily from mid-October to mid-April, January and February being the coldest time. Our house, built early 1900s was totally renovated 6 years ago and very well air sealed and insulated. In-laws house was built in the 1980s and is poorly insulated. We burn a bit over 2 cord a year, I empty the ash every 3 weeks or so and it is just ash. MIL burns over 5 cord a year, shovels out a bucket of coals and ash once or twice a week, in really cold spells she shovels out coals daily to make room for more wood. Our place is always comfortably warm. Her house is usually either hot or cold.
The stoves must be performing similarly, but in our case the performance is satisfactory for our heat requirement, for my MIL the performance cannot keep up with the heat requirement. Needless to say, I am very pleased with the EPA stove, my MIL, less so.
This does not give an answer to Whitespider's problem, but it does show how different performance can be for 2 very similar users.
So, the question is... Who of you would be willing to spend $300 to $400 more for a stove or an accessory that monitors and regulate intake and output of a stove to maximize every stage of a burn cycle.
This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables.
It's a serious question BTW...
This is ultimately what is being discussed here. An automated control that self adjust to outside variables.
It's a serious question BTW...
Yes I can… but that doesn’t address the problem of the coal bed that (almost) never burns down.
Well that’s certainly thinking outside the box… but I see a massive headache trying to keep them all adjusted.
In reality, the time for experiments is past… likely the extreme cold is gone until next January. We may see a couple mornings coming in just under 10[sup]o[/sup], but warming significantly throughout the day. I’m not willing to take chances and wait for January to roll around again just to find out… I have to go with what I know will work when it does. The DAKA furnace I bought from another member here is basically and air-tight firebox. It has a single intake that feeds the air under a cast iron grate… no secondary, no pilot, no multiple burns. The draft blower has a gate that can be closed off completely if desired… and that, in conjunction with a flue damper will give me total control of both the intake and exhaust. There is only one way for the air to get to the fire… underneath it… it’s a can’t miss system. In reality, that is the simple answer to the “super draft”.
Hey, I gave the clean burning EPA thing a good run… it just ain’t gonna’ work for me.
I’m not saying that as an “I-told-you-so”, I really wanted it to work (it was free after all)… simply, it-is-what-it-is, nothing more.
zogger
Tree Freak
That is exactly what I was getting it, and the easiest way to do it, sort of what you are describing, but without traditional dampers, just a longer more restricted exhaust travel to slow it down a little and suck more heat out.. A diverter to a boxed in plenum, with a lot of elbows in there, and an additional fan that can be turned on to extract this heat and move it into the living space. I dont think just three elbows would do it, based on his description. Half a dozen maybe, maybe more.
Fyrebug… $400 probably not… $300 maybe… $200 more likely… but I’m cheap
Really, except for this last go-a-round, I’ve never seen the need for such a contraption… but I’m anti-gadget also
Really, except for this last go-a-round, I’ve never seen the need for such a contraption… but I’m anti-gadget also
Fyrebug… $400 probably not… $300 maybe… $200 more likely… but I’m cheap
Really, except for this last go-a-round, I’ve never seen the need for such a contraption… but I’m anti-gadget also
There's no pleasing you... :yoyo:
stihly dan
Addicted to ArboristSite
Thats what a magic heat is, except it has a thermostatic fan.
zogger
Tree Freak
The issue, main one, is stack height and pressure, the draft. Theres only so much you can do with dampers and intakes when the stack diameter and height remain a constant, but the demand and outside temps and wind, etc are such huge variable. You coulld do the passive diverter and secondary plenum like I suggest, or, you could have an active air intake like a forge, and a minimal stack diameter, then have it chip controlled via blower speed.
The only saving grace on an expensive forge blower setup like that would be a much smaller flue pipe to install, BUT, you are tied 100% to electricity all the time. Thats why I like the passive diverter ( I was already before this thread going to modify my own stove exhaust this way next summer when it gets rebuilt), and a manually operated system, flip a dang lever, just a big valve thing. Cold days, massive draft, divert it to the secondary long travel exchanger, mild days, straight through. Salt to taste for individuall wood choices and location, etc..
Similar threads
