nice stove rick. glad i just repped ya
New wood stove I built! What ya think?
- Thread starter Husq445
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
jags
ArboristSite Guru
Dude - your dogs eyes - tell him to look AWAY from the welder.
Thanks for all the rep everybody!
I do have a couple issues with it that I wanted to get some input on.
First are the temps Im running.
I have a couple of the magnetic temp guages, one mounted about 12 inches off the top of the stove on the single wall pipe, the other is on the top of the stove in the center.
Anyway, wondering if my flue temps are hot enough
Stove top - 500-600
Pipe - 225-275
These temps are where it likes to run and runs 90% of the time
Problem is I just bought a infrared temp gun and 6 feet up before it goes into the insulated pipe its 175-200 and checking various points on the stove it can be as high as 700 degrees in certain hot spots, so I didnt really want to run any hotter, do I?
Thanks for the input
Rick
I do have a couple issues with it that I wanted to get some input on.
First are the temps Im running.
I have a couple of the magnetic temp guages, one mounted about 12 inches off the top of the stove on the single wall pipe, the other is on the top of the stove in the center.
Anyway, wondering if my flue temps are hot enough
Stove top - 500-600
Pipe - 225-275
These temps are where it likes to run and runs 90% of the time
Problem is I just bought a infrared temp gun and 6 feet up before it goes into the insulated pipe its 175-200 and checking various points on the stove it can be as high as 700 degrees in certain hot spots, so I didnt really want to run any hotter, do I?
Thanks for the input
Rick
You could go up to 800 without any problem, I would think. If your secondaries are working well, that 275 on the pipe is 550 which is probably good but you could go all the way up to 500 which is 1000 degrees internal. That's where I run my Morso all the time.
But if that seems to be the sweet spot for your stove, I would keep running it there.
But if that seems to be the sweet spot for your stove, I would keep running it there.
With single wall double your reading to get the internal temp. With double wall you need a probe thermometer.
grandpatractor
Addicted to ArboristSite
Wow , very nice job. I like to do a bit of fab work myself.
It's always fun using something you made.
It's always fun using something you made.
Need some help from you wood burners out there.
Had a lot of people ask me about the BTU rating this would approximate or what kind of square footage it would heat.
My firebox dimensions are
28 deep (long)
22 wide
16 tall
Anyone have anything close to these dimensions, if so what is it rated at for BTUs or square footage.
I know that a stoves rating is determined by more than firebox size, but just curious also let me know if you have secondaries, tubes or catalyst.
Rick
Had a lot of people ask me about the BTU rating this would approximate or what kind of square footage it would heat.
My firebox dimensions are
28 deep (long)
22 wide
16 tall
Anyone have anything close to these dimensions, if so what is it rated at for BTUs or square footage.
I know that a stoves rating is determined by more than firebox size, but just curious also let me know if you have secondaries, tubes or catalyst.
Rick
Great fabrication and build !
Hillbilly Rick
ArboristSite Operative
Rick,
I hope this helps some, my Vogelsang boxwood stove is 26"Dx14"Tx15"W and heats our 1400sq.ft. NOT evenly, but it does the job. I don't know how to figure BTUs.
Is the pipe you used 1" black iron?
How does the air wash come in?Are the pipes reduced or plugged?
Again nice work
Rick
I hope this helps some, my Vogelsang boxwood stove is 26"Dx14"Tx15"W and heats our 1400sq.ft. NOT evenly, but it does the job. I don't know how to figure BTUs.
Is the pipe you used 1" black iron?
How does the air wash come in?Are the pipes reduced or plugged?
Again nice work
Rick
This is just a WAG but I would say you have to be in the 90-100,000+ BTU range with a firebox that size.
My Oslo is rated at 70K and the firebox is about half the size of yours.
No straight forward easy way to compare.
http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/btutest.htm
http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/btutest.htm
Cool Thanks
Closest in const and size I could come up with.
Pacific (Mine)
Summit
Construction: Plate Steel (Plate Steel)
Heating Efficiency: 80.3% (?)
Particulate Emissions: 3.56 grams/hr (?)
Maximum Output: 97,000 BTU/hr (?)
Heating Capacity: 2000 - 3000 sq. ft. (?)
Firebox Size: 3.0 cu. ft. (4.0 cu ft (18"x 26.5"x 14.5"))
Hardwood Capacity: 60 lbs (?)
Maximum Log Length: 20" (26")
Flue Size: 6" (6")
Dimensio 31-1/2"T x 25-1/2"W x 23-1/2"D ( 32t x 28w x 38d)
Shipping Weight: 475 lbs ( HEAVY)
I have one in my wood shop, I cram tin foil around the bottom of the door to reduce the air flow. Its a small cabin so with that little stove cranken it always about 100 in there unless I keep the out side door open.....
nice work OP
MishMouse
ArboristSite Operative
How clean of burns are you getting from that monster?
Since you have secondary combustion you must be running close to 80-85% efficiecny with little or no smoke.
I am impressed!!
:dribble:
Since you have secondary combustion you must be running close to 80-85% efficiecny with little or no smoke.
I am impressed!!
:dribble:
CrappieKeith
Addicted to ArboristSite
Depending on draft speeds,moisture wood content and ht. exchanger surface are you could see vast differences in btu outputs.
I also would agree that you are most likely in that 90,000 btu range.
In the real world way of testing efficiency any solid fuel ,oil or gas furnace over 83% becomes condensing.
Emmisions or gases when cooled will liquify. There would also be a need for a flue fan to push emmision out the vent pipe since stack temps are so cool like on condesing liquid fuel furnace.There would also need to be a drain pipe off of the flue.
Now do not get confused with the European "lower heat method" of testing. In that tesing there is no water in the wood giving off a higher efficiency number.
We ran some bio bricks and the Bacherack testor read 91%. That was a hard one to believe.
Most wood furnace will never really get much over 76% of course you could ramp up the burn rate with more air to drive the fire into a hotter flame to get a higher percentage but then the burn time would drop due to the increase of combustion air.
Of course making that much heat would require a massive heat exchanger to draw out the heat...it's a tricky business trying to get the maximum efficiency,keep fire temps low enough to not warp steels and exchanging the heats as they are made.
If it was that easy everybody could slap out 80% wood burners.
In trying tolearn more I've spoken with all 4 of the federally approved solid fuel testing facilities and they all agree on that premis.
I also would agree that you are most likely in that 90,000 btu range.
In the real world way of testing efficiency any solid fuel ,oil or gas furnace over 83% becomes condensing.
Emmisions or gases when cooled will liquify. There would also be a need for a flue fan to push emmision out the vent pipe since stack temps are so cool like on condesing liquid fuel furnace.There would also need to be a drain pipe off of the flue.
Now do not get confused with the European "lower heat method" of testing. In that tesing there is no water in the wood giving off a higher efficiency number.
We ran some bio bricks and the Bacherack testor read 91%. That was a hard one to believe.
Most wood furnace will never really get much over 76% of course you could ramp up the burn rate with more air to drive the fire into a hotter flame to get a higher percentage but then the burn time would drop due to the increase of combustion air.
Of course making that much heat would require a massive heat exchanger to draw out the heat...it's a tricky business trying to get the maximum efficiency,keep fire temps low enough to not warp steels and exchanging the heats as they are made.
If it was that easy everybody could slap out 80% wood burners.
In trying tolearn more I've spoken with all 4 of the federally approved solid fuel testing facilities and they all agree on that premis.
Last edited:
As far as clean burns.
If I let the stove completely cool down and fill it full, stoke it up, it smokes pretty good for about the first 20-30 mins till the burn tubes get hot enough to light. Stove top has to be at least 450 to 500 before i can slow it down and not smoke. Once up to temps and adding wood, still smokes but pretty minimal. No where near as clean as my father in laws Hearthstone Heritage. But that thing is finicky and a pain in the --- to run. This is what motivated me to build one of my own. I wanted a new stove and there was no way that i was going to fork out the kind of money he did and not be happy with it.
My secondary flames are a lot more extravagant than his, but my firebox is quite a bit bigger.
Not saying that I built a stove better than a manufacturer could, it works for me, I use less wood and get longer burn times than others that I have seen.
Also I am not everybody. This isn't a stove you could build in your garage. I am a professional welder. Had some pretty serious equipment at my disposal. Namely a 175 ton press brake, a mig, a tig, plasma, shear, 80 ton iron worker.
I cannot say that I slapped it together either. I only had about 24 hours build time on it but a few months of researching and designing.
If I let the stove completely cool down and fill it full, stoke it up, it smokes pretty good for about the first 20-30 mins till the burn tubes get hot enough to light. Stove top has to be at least 450 to 500 before i can slow it down and not smoke. Once up to temps and adding wood, still smokes but pretty minimal. No where near as clean as my father in laws Hearthstone Heritage. But that thing is finicky and a pain in the --- to run. This is what motivated me to build one of my own. I wanted a new stove and there was no way that i was going to fork out the kind of money he did and not be happy with it.
My secondary flames are a lot more extravagant than his, but my firebox is quite a bit bigger.
Not saying that I built a stove better than a manufacturer could, it works for me, I use less wood and get longer burn times than others that I have seen.
Also I am not everybody. This isn't a stove you could build in your garage. I am a professional welder. Had some pretty serious equipment at my disposal. Namely a 175 ton press brake, a mig, a tig, plasma, shear, 80 ton iron worker.
I cannot say that I slapped it together either. I only had about 24 hours build time on it but a few months of researching and designing.
Congrats! I do a lot of DIY'ing but dont have nearly those kind of resources. That is just incredible! I am thinking of modifying my old stove with secondary burn however, its an old steel stove that is basically just a box, either homebuillt or by a small outfit. Any particular tips you have on designing a secondary burn system?
Beefie
Addicted to ArboristSite
Very nice job on the build,well thought out. Your fab skills are awsome. rep sent.
Beefie
Beefie
Similar threads
