What is the best style stove, EPA, CAT, down drafter, one with a grate

[sunfish]

You might if your stove was cranking out too much heat for your house? And the stove operated just fine without it...
After 6 years I started doin it. Secondary air is on right now though!

I need to add that this wont work with all stoves, but is fine with the Jotul F118CB. It's a box stove with a secondary burn chamber above the baffle, no internal damper, or anything to redirect gases. When it's burning hot, it gets a secondary burn without the air from the tubes. Never smokes out the chimney once burning well... 60,000 BTU takes 24" wood.

 

[Locust Cutter]

That might be perfect as a secondary one for me on the far side of the house...

 

[Steve NW WI]

That's a simple answer... Because the EPA regulations are not, and have never been intended to reduce fuel usage, increase heat output or heating efficiency. The sole, single purpose intent, or goal, of those regulations is, and always has been to reduce emissions... nothing more, and nothing less. It is stated over and over... it's about emissions... it's all about what's come from the stack. But the BTU output is measured... remember my example in the other thread for the Spectrum?? (I'm adding burn time for this example)

• Efficiency - 81.6%
• Heat Output (EPA) -36,600 BTU
• Heat Output (Cordwood) -72,000 BTU
• Burn Time (Max.) - 8 Hours

Why is that so hard for "believers" to comprehend?? To achieve the 81.6% efficiency the stove was producing only 36,600 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle. But... let me say it again... BUT‼ Pacific Energy says they get "up to" 72,000 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle with cordwood in their real world(?) test. Well... the simple fact is... YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO‼ It is impossible... let me say it again... IMPOSSIBLE... to double BTU output without significantly lowering both efficiency and burn time‼

Chew on this Spidey - you yourself just recently posted their test wood - cribbed together softwood 2x4 and 4x4 lumber.

At 15Mbtu/cord for white pine, and 26Mbtu/cord for red oak according to the UNeb chart I've got, that ain't quite double, but with nice square splits of proper size to fill the firebox, double is physically possible. Is it practical - no, cordwood generally doesn't come that even - but it is possible.

As far as only caring about emissions, that's likely true, but as the stove co. guys have argued for years, there needs to be an allowance for the amount of work (heat delivered) being done. It's simple really, and even at least one roundhead at EEEPAW gets it, as there are different emissions limits for different sizes of diesel engines.

 

[Whitespider]

I'd NEVER run a woodstove with secondary combustion, with secondary air turned off. Never. You're tossing away a lot of energy as super-nasty stuff up the flue.

There's that "blanket statement" BS again.
And "super-nasty stuff" my achin' butt‼

When it's burning hot, it gets a secondary burn without the air from the tubes. Never smokes out the chimney...

Amazing... simply amazing‼ Secondary combustion without secondary air?? Amazing‼

My "smoke dragon" furnace does not smoke when it's running properly... and it has no "secondary" air of any sort.

And the really nice thing about it is... when temperatures are "warmish"... ya' simply use smaller fuel loads. In an "old" technology firebox the "amount" of fuel as less to do with length of burn (or burn time) and more to do with heat output. Running smaller loads, at hotter temps, keeps them burning clean while reducing heat output... yet, does not significantly affect the time between reloads. The same cannot be said about the "new" technology... smaller loads reduce burn time, yet, do not significantly reduce output. The "waste" is all the excess, unneeded, unwanted heat being thrown from them at too high of a rate... something not "wasted" in "old" technology.

It really does come down to running them correctly... the "technology" has noting to do with it... and never has.
Put an idiot at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will be crap...
Put someone who knows what they're doing at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will not be crap.
*

 

[oldspark]

We can go back on forth on this until the cows come home but the fact of the matter is there are statements etched in concrete that should not be allowed to cloud the issue.
One of them is as spidey says, secondary combustion happens when the fire is hot enough, the old stoves do not smoke at that point in time, not sure what the testing showed, some of tests are like pissing into the wind.

 

[Steve NW WI]

The "waste" is all the excess, unneeded, unwanted heat being thrown from them at too high of a rate... something not "wasted" in "old" technology.

It really does come down to running them correctly... the "technology" has noting to do with it... and never has.
Put an idiot at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will be crap...
Put someone who knows what they're doing at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will not be crap.
*

Spidey, tell me again how you get less heat at the beginning of the cycle with the slam the door and walk away method? Like I said, wood burns on a curve, not linearly. It does it in an old stove, a new stove, a firepit, on a flat rock inside a cave, wherever. It-is-what-it-is, as you like to say.

 

[mooseracing]

You just rake them all toward the very front of the stove and toss a small thin slab on top then open your air intake to wide open and leave it for next few hours and enjoy the heat from those coals.proper technique on running these new stoves it goes a long way and avoids the concerns you have

That kind of worked on our Napoleon, doesn't work at all on the Englander, all you do is send the heat up the stack and get nothing usable.

When you get down to a bed of coals with a 200-300F stovetop, it's useless for heating a house from a single room.

I'd like to see a primary air tube ran down the middle (off the bottom an inch or two) front to back so the entire bed of coals can get air. Then shutoff the secondary air.

 

[Cerran]

There's that "blanket statement" BS again.
And "super-nasty stuff" my achin' butt‼


Amazing... simply amazing‼ Secondary combustion without secondary air?? Amazing‼

My "smoke dragon" furnace does not smoke when it's running properly... and it has no "secondary" air of any sort.

And the really nice thing about it is... when temperatures are "warmish"... ya' simply use smaller fuel loads. In an "old" technology firebox the "amount" of fuel as less to do with length of burn (or burn time) and more to do with heat output. Running smaller loads, at hotter temps, keeps them burning clean while reducing heat output... yet, does not significantly affect the time between reloads. The same cannot be said about the "new" technology... smaller loads reduce burn time, yet, do not significantly reduce output. The "waste" is all the excess, unneeded, unwanted heat being thrown from them at too high of a rate... something not "wasted" in "old" technology.

It really does come down to running them correctly... the "technology" has noting to do with it... and never has.
Put an idiot at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will be crap...
Put someone who knows what they're doing at the controls of anything... regardless of the technology... and the results will not be crap.
*

It's still easier with the newer stoves to achieve a more ideal burn with less than ideal conditions though. The old non-EPA units were more forgiving on the quality of wood but did put out more emissions per unit heat than the new stoves.

It boils down to the physics and thermo-kinetics of combustion and fluid flow. When you add all the air in the primary combustion zone without the aid of a catalyst you get higher velocities and more carryover exiting the firebox even if you have a clean burn.

I have a friend who recently replaced a Fisher smoke dragon with a Kuma Sequoia stove and saw flue temperatures drop from the high 400's to around 305-315 under normal operations. He burned seasoned (cut and stacked for 1 year) Red Fir and Tamarack mix in both instances. He never had creosote issues with the old Fisher so he got a clean burn but it's obvious he's getting more heat out of the new stove versus the old one because of the stack temps. He's also seen a reduction in wood usage over the old stove of around 30% already.

 

[flotek]

That kind of worked on our Napoleon, doesn't work at all on the Englander, all you do is send the heat up the stack and get nothing usable.

When you get down to a bed of coals with a 200-300F stovetop, it's useless for heating a house from a single room.

I'd like to see a primary air tube ran down the middle (off the bottom an inch or two) front to back so the entire bed of coals can get air. Then shutoff the secondary air.

I have an englander nc 13 in my shop and for me it is same procedure of the coarse being a smaller firebox it doesn't have quite the same affect

 

[flotek]

What a pointless argument to have. . It's like saying a new chainsaw is no better than a cross cut two man or saying a. 5 gallon pail is as good as indoor plumbing a campfire is as good as a microwave . A bike with a basket is as useful to get to work as a truck ..There are some advancements as time goes on that are plain to see as clear improvements . Fuel injection , natural gas. , indoor plumbing , internal combustion engines microwaves ect ..
An epa or cat stove will make better use of the btu in the wood as long as its dry Instead of releasing all the energy at once it does it over a longer period of time and captures more of that energy and A smoke dragon is simply not going to get true secondary action

 

[Whitespider]

Spidey, tell me again how you get less heat at the beginning of the cycle with the slam the door and walk away method? Like I said, wood burns on a curve...

You're seeing it backwards... it ain't less heat at the beginning, it's more heat at the end.
The coal bed continues to heat at a higher rate when air flows up through it instead of over it... the "curve" is much less pronounced.

It's still easier with the newer stoves to achieve a more ideal burn with less than ideal conditions though.

Really?? What conditions?? How about the condition of wet wood?? Too much draft?? Cold chimney?? Short chimney?? Not enough draft?? Tall chimney??
Like I said... one ain't automatically better... you can not make blanket statements.

I have a friend who recently replaced a Fisher smoke dragon with a Kuma Sequoia stove and saw flue temperatures drop from the high 400's to around 305-315... it's obvious he's getting more heat... because of the stack temps.

Why would that be obvious?? It sure ain't to me.
Those are two different appliances, variances are normal and to be expected.
Any number of dozens of things could contribute to the variance in stack temp... only a small few could equate to a possible... I'll say it again, possible... difference in heat output at the box.

He's also seen a reduction in wood usage over the old stove of around 30% already.

Really?? WOW‼
I'm not sure what you mean by "recently", but I'm assuming this fall... so he's been using it 2 or 3 months.
And after just a couple months he can say it uses 30% less wood?? Really?? WOW‼ That guy must count and record every stick of wood he stuffs in the firebox, the type of wood, and the temperature every time he does (and a whole bunch more stuff).

By-the-way... What size was the Fisher firebox?? What size is the Kuma firebox??
Don't bother answering... 'cause if you do I have another dozen or so sets to ask.
*

 

[Whitespider]

What a pointless argument to have. . It's like saying a new chainsaw is no better than a cross cut two man...

No... what you said is pointless.
We are comparing a woodstove to a woodstove... not a nuclear reactor to a woodstove.
Comparing one chainsaw to another chainsaw would be a comparable argument to a woodstove to a woodstove... but a chainsaw to a handsaw is a pointless as a nuclear reactor to a woodstove‼
*

 

[Steve NW WI]

@Whitespider I don't think I read it wrong, you were specifically referring to the excess, WASTED, heat at the beginning of the cycle (which is where I inferred, based on context and your previous statements about the high heat output while the dreaded secondaries are doing their job, that you were pointing out)

Heat is not "wasted" until it leaves the home. If it leaves the home faster than you can replace it, you'll get cold. If it stays there longer, you might get uncomfortable unless you let some out.

Wood heat, in whatever form you use to produce it, is not completely conducive to the thermostatically controlled 2° difference in temperatures many are used to. Hot water systems that store the heat for later come pretty close, but at a substantial cost and added complexity. A big thermal mass russian fireplace could be argued the same way, but what happens when it's over fired, and the weather turns? Crackin the windows time until that mass cools off. Want 72 everywhere, every minute? Get on the bottle or plug in.

 

[Cerran]

Really?? What conditions?? How about the condition of wet wood?? Too much draft?? Cold chimney?? Short chimney?? Not enough draft?? Tall chimney??
Like I said... one ain't automatically better... you can not make blanket statements.

Actually a modern stove with the exception of wet wood will cope generally better with all of these conditions and get a cleaner burn.

Why would that be obvious?? It sure ain't to me.
Those are two different appliances, variances are normal and to be expected.
Any number of dozens of things could contribute to the variance in stack temp... only a small few could equate to a possible... I'll say it again, possible... difference in heat output at the box.

Not true. For the same mass of wood into the firebox since the old stove and new stove have basically the same firebox volume, the variance of the stack temperature is more heat staying in the room and not going up the chimney. This is of course with a visual inspection of the lack of smoke coming from the chimney in both instances.

Really?? WOW‼
I'm not sure what you mean by "recently", but I'm assuming this fall... so he's been using it 2 or 3 months.
And after just a couple months he can say it uses 30% less wood?? Really?? WOW‼ That guy must count and record every stick of wood he stuffs in the firebox, the type of wood, and the temperature every time he does (and a whole bunch more stuff).

Assuming a 5% variance on the wood he has stacked year in and year out and him pulling from the same pile for the past 10 years I think it's safe to trust him on the wood usage.

Additionally since we are both engineers, he has calculated the heating degree days this year versus last year and this is a colder year and he has still used ~30% less wood.

For 2012 Heating Degree Days Sept-Dec was 5067 (60 F Baseline) for 2013 it was 6179 for the same time period.

As for the type of wood, like I said it's a mix of Red Fir and Tamarack, but mostly Red Fir which is consistent with pretty much every other year considering we cut firewood together.

By-the-way... What size was the Fisher firebox?? What size is the Kuma firebox??
Don't bother answering... 'cause if you do I have another dozen or so sets to ask.

The new stove is 3.6 Cubic feet and the old is ~4 cubic feet.

Just because you can ask questions does not make you right.

 

[Chris-PA]

I think the best way to compare the size or capacity of a stove is simply by the volume of the firebox - how much fuel it holds. I don't really pay much attention to the advertised BTU output (which are usually peak outputs). By that measure we end up with a lot of comparisons of much larger older stoves to smaller secondary combustion stoves, and people who are not satisfied. Efficiency is not a great term to use, as it is a measure of how well optimized some particular variable is relative to some other. One could speak of peak BTUs per volume of the stove, or minimum cumulative particulates for a given fuel load - it's just a ratio of one thing to another thing. Be sure you are looking at the variables that are important to you.

My stove supposedly has a 3.25 cu. ft. firebox. When I load it heavy and the secondary burn is going the output is fearsome. After the volatiles burn off and the secondary dies down the output is much reduced. I can open the air inlet and keep output up a bit higher if I want - I seldom do that as the stove has a large thermal mass around it, I don't care about holding a constant temp in the house and so I'm happy to let it coast down. Sometimes I'll throw in some poplar or sassafras splits - light wood that burns hot and fast and doesn't coal much - to get a secondary combustion going over the coal bed until the end of the cycle.

If you need to keep the output up and add wood before the cycle is done then you have coals, but it is pretty easy to arrange them so they burn up in the next loading. If you're actually throwing coals out, then you are not really using that wood in the stove, you're disposing of it - it is not correct to count that wood in terms of how much you "used" in the stove to heat your house.

 

[Chris-PA]

@Whitespider Wood heat, in whatever form you use to produce it, is not completely conducive to the thermostatically controlled 2° difference in temperatures many are used to. Hot water systems that store the heat for later come pretty close, but at a substantial cost and added complexity. A big thermal mass russian fireplace could be argued the same way, but what happens when it's over fired, and the weather turns? Crackin the windows time until that mass cools off. Want 72 everywhere, every minute? Get on the bottle or plug in.

I am convinced this is the biggest issue; the one of expectations. A steady high temperature, even over time and location within the house, especially without a large thermal mass, is not a good match to wood heat. At least not without using a large amount of wood.

 

[flotek]

My firebox on my epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger . My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller firebox and way cleaner and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling .that's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old unit and it held more wood . My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 in my 2,000 sq foot house

 

[Whitespider]

I'm not gonna' address every post since my last one...
I'll make my point by addressing just the following one..

My firebox on my epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger . My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller firebox and way cleaner and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling .that's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old unit and it held more wood . My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 in my 2,000 sq foot house

Guess what?
I'm gonna' take that above quote and make some minor changes to fit my home and its current setup...

My firebox on my non-epa furnace is about 3.5 cubic feet the old one was a lot bigger than the EPA box I used last year. My burn times are several hours longer in a smaller larger firebox and way cleaner just as clean and I always have coals I don't need matches fire starters or even kindling. That's no smoke and mirrors I'm seeing a substantial savings in wood I've used about half two-thirds what I would have used if I load it down in 30 degree weather I've seen true 15 12 hrs of burning I would have never seen that in my old EPA unit and it held more wood. My house stays a constant temperature . Its zero -13° out and blowing as I type this and right now and we are at. 74 72° in my 2,000 1500 sq foot house.

So how is it I can say virtually the same damn thing about going from an EPA box to a non-EPA, as you can say about going from a non-EPA box to an EPA box??
I'll tell you why...
Because it has nothing to do with the technology... NOTHING‼ It's a matter of using the proper tool for the intended purpose and running it correctly‼
You flat can not make the blanket statement that the "new" wood-burning technology is automatically more better‼
Only someone short-sighted (i.e., one of those "true" believers I was talking about) would do so... sometimes the cross-cut saw is a better choice than the rip saw, sometimes the maul is a better choice than the ax, sometimes the pocket knife is a better choice than the butcher knife... and sometimes everyone can be both right, and wrong at the same time. But when you speak in absolutes... I guaranty you'll be wrong a lot more than you'll be right.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

That's a simple answer... Because the EPA regulations are not, and have never been intended to reduce fuel usage, increase heat output or heating efficiency. The sole, single purpose intent, or goal, of those regulations is, and always has been to reduce emissions... nothing more, and nothing less. It is stated over and over... it's about emissions... it's all about what's come from the stack. But the BTU output is measured... remember my example in the other thread for the Spectrum?? (I'm adding burn time for this example)

• Efficiency - 81.6%
• Heat Output (EPA) -36,600 BTU
• Heat Output (Cordwood) -72,000 BTU
• Burn Time (Max.) - 8 Hours

Why is that so hard for "believers" to comprehend?? To achieve the 81.6% efficiency the stove was producing only 36,600 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle. But... let me say it again... BUT‼ Pacific Energy says they get "up to" 72,000 BTU's (average per hour?) over the burn cycle with cordwood in their real world(?) test. Well... the simple fact is... YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO‼ It is impossible... let me say it again... IMPOSSIBLE... to double BTU output without significantly lowering both efficiency and burn time‼

So to you true believers... you disciples of the "new" technology... YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO‼ It is impossible‼ Unless the Lord our Christ himself has stepped in and performed a great miracle... it is not possible for you to be getting anything near the efficiency rating at the same time you're getting the heat output you claim, or believe, you're getting.

Why do you assume these 4 specifications pertain to the same situation and that all must be met simultaneously and can be equated? When you look at the specs for a car and it lists max horsepower and max fuel economy, we're all pretty aware that you won't get both at the same time. The rating of some particular test done under some specific conditions might not relate directly to, say, max BTU output under some other conditions. That does not mean they are of no value in figuring out what to expect the unit to do.

I write performance specifications for our products, and our goal is to provide information that lets the user understand what they can expect from the product in use, but the various ratings may be under different conditions that are not directly related. Other vendors just write whatever the customer wants to hear, but at least with some standardized test they can't fudge the numbers so easily.

 

[Whitespider]

L-O-L ‼
I just had'ta come back and post this... had'ta because of this thread...
Today has been one of the coldest we've seen in the last few years... I think the high was -13° with wind, putting windchill 'round -50° most all day.

I just walked in the house... my wife looks at me and says...
"Why'd that guy sell that wood-burner?? It's friggin' awesome‼ The house has been 71-72° all day... it's the best one we've ever had‼"

Of course, she's only been around 4 of 'em... and never even touched the first... but...
Never argue with a woman boys... never with a woman... LOL
*