A better explanation...

[Tim Carroll]

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

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

View attachment 281890

 

[Chris-PA]

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve NW WI]

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

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

Coal bed, before doing anything:

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing personal - I enjoy arguing with you.

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

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

It's a serious question BTW...

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

 

[kgip2k]

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

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

Coal bed, before doing anything:

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing personal - I enjoy arguing with you.




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

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

 

[Chris-PA]

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

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

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

 

[Chris-PA]

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

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

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

 

[Whitespider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not believe the article describes your situation.

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

 

[Jredsjeep]

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

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

It's a serious question BTW...

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

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

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

 

[Fyrebug]

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

View attachment 281890

I think the above describes the entire thread...

 

[cmsmoke]

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

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

 

[Whitespider]

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

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

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

 

[Fyrebug]

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris-PA]

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

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

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

For burn rates in Categories 1 through 3, the appliance shall be operated with the primary
air supply inlet control, or other mechanical control device, set at a predetermined position
necessary to obtain the average burn rate required for the category.​

These types of standards in every industry are subject to interpretation and misinterpretation, and people spend whole careers fighting battles over the details.

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

 

[stihl sawing]

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

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

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

 

[Whitespider]

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

 

[Whitespider]

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

 

[cmsmoke]

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

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

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

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

 

[Whitespider]

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

 

[Chris-PA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cmsmoke]

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

BS...Enlighten me.