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

[Eric Modell]

The one I had was great when it worked. It burned the load from the bottom, instead of burning the whole load. Very efficient design. But after what I went through I sure don't want another...

I have been intersted in rocket stoves a modern down drafted design that has not been capitalized on yet. If the air is pulled down more heat in the dwelling less up the stack. But more complicatet then some of the other designs.

 

[Chris-PA]

My chimney s always clean.

The chimney cleaning tools comment was in response to unclemoustache, who will need a high capacity and has wood that is not well seasoned. If you burn a large quantity of poorly seasoned wood it would make sense to keep up with chimney cleaning.

 

[davidbradley360]

the sidedraft and downdraft stoves can be a real PITA to get going. they require a very high flue temp for secondary combustion, around 500 F or higher. that's a very hot stovepipe and flue, because basically they are burning the smoke in the stovepipe and flue exit, not in the firebox. some of them take 2 hours to get up to speed and build a hot coal bed, so they can kick into sidedraft mode. the Riteway wasn't really a downdraft stove, it was a sidedraft. the inlet air came in under the grates, came around the edges via the 2 louvers, one on each side, then moved through the base of the fire into the side exit, then up and out. on the way out it was hit with secondary air from the fixed drilled orifices on the side. here's a writeup on just how laborious one of these stoves can be to fire. most people don't have this much time just to fire their stove. if you have to load up, dampen, then jump in your car and go to work, I'm doubtful these are a good idea. notice how the writer wakes up the next day and the stove is at 200 degrees. then he has to start the process all over again of building coals. to me the key would be, a stove that can build coals quickly and be switched over to cross draft mode, and hold that mode for 10-12 hours, that would be the one to try. but personally I'd rather just burn the wood in the box ?

http://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/downdraft-stove-operation/

Downdraft Stove Operation
Apr 19, 2013

• 
  li" data-history="on">
• Page
• Attachments (1)

Downdraft Stove Operation

• Burning the newer Downdraft (base burning) - Type Wood Stoves
  
  Definition: A wood stove which draws the smoke and exhaust DOWN through the burning load and embers in an attempt to extract as much heat as possible from the gases in the wood. Also sometimes called downdraft, cross draft and base burning.
  
  Downdraft wood stoves have been around for hundreds of years, and even Ben Franklins orginal design tried to bring the smoke back down through the embers in order to burn more efficienctly. In fact, patent #86,074 from 1869, shows an extremely well developed base burning model with most all of the features in place.
  
  But most of this technology was forgotten as wood burning stoves were junked in favor of coal and then oil/gas heating.
  
  The mid -1970's saw a resurgence of wood burning, and with the new stove companies sought out designs which would provide high efficiency and reduced creosote and smoke (pollution) production. A company called Riteway came to market with a number of utilitarian models which used downdraft design. These were well received in the marketplace, but became a victim of cheap oil in the 1980's.
  
  
  
  Pictured above are two designs separated by approx. 100 years!
  
  In 1988, Vermont Castings reintroduced a downdraft stove called the Resolute Acclaim. This stove was created in order to meet the new EPA clean burning standards which required that any newly manufactured stove meet certain emission guidelines.
  
  
  Cutaway drawing of Resolute Acclaim combustion system shown above - note - this drawing is from US Patent Office files, with some added color for explanation.
  
  With the renewed interest in wood burning following the turn of the millenium, a number of new models with similar combustion systems have recently entered the market. These include, but are not limited to:
  1. Vermont Castings Non-catalytic Encore and Defiant
  2. Lopi Leyden
  3. Avalon Arbor
  4. Harman Oakwood
  5. Certain Dutchwest Non-Catalytic cast iron models (Model 2479, etc.)
  
  Although Hearth.com has some articles on starting and tending a wood fire, these do not specifically address the proper starting and burning of downdraft-type unit. Here are links to the aforementioned articles:
  Starting a Wood Fire - http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/start_a_wood_fire
  Tending a Wood Fire - http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/tending_a_wood_fire
  
  Ok, now onward to the operation of a downdraft stove.
  
  Short summary - as you can see in the drawing of the Resolute Acclaim, these stove depend on having a large bed of hot red embers in order to function. This often required burning though a good part (or all) of the first load of wood in order to establish this "critical mass". Typical operation in such a stove is:
  1. Burn first load mostly with bypass and air inlets open to warm chimney, stove and establish bed of embers.
  2. Add wood, close bypass and adjust output once you are familiar with your stove and chimney combination
  3. When the load has burned down to red coals, open the bypass, add wood, and then close the bypass and adjust air
  
  Here are suggestions from our forum members who are using these stoves
  
  Here is the procedure that I follow when my stove (Dutchwest 2479 ) is up to temp and needs to be reloaded:
  
  1) Open bypass
  2) poke residual logs to collapse into coals (if necessary). Needs a good 2+ of coals, so plan accordingly
  3) load fresh splits (see note below on orientation)
  4) open air inlet 100% for about 10-15 minutes or until fire is very active (about 475 on the flu connector magnetic thermometer)
  5) Damper down to about 1/3 air and let burn for another 10 minutes. This reduces wasteful burning that is just rocketing right up the chimney, but is necessary to pre-heat the new splits on the top
  6) Open air inlet to 100% again for about 2 minutes to get an active fire again
  7) Close bypass/engage downdraft.
  8) If rumble persists, temps are good, smoke-free at the top of the stack, I Damper down to about 3/4 then 1/2 then 1/4.
  
  If the stove stalls, it means that the coals weren't oriented right, there werent enough of them, or the fresh splits were ready for that stage yet. All the above assumes dry, seasoned hardwood. Also, I have a thick masonry chimney which has to be properly heated before it drafts well enough to use the downdraft combustion sytem. This takes about 2 hours in my set up.
  
  Also, when the drafting is good and outdoor temps are low, lately Ive been experimenting with the following to reduce thermonuclear incidents. A freshly loaded stove holds about 6 medium sized splits on top of the coal bed. I have been putting two less-seasoned splits on the top row. That way they bake for a while and dry out before the splits below them reduce to coals.
  
  Orienting the splits.......
  
  When I add new splits, I create a small pocket in front of/ above the throat entrance to the reburning chamber. Split-size willing, I do this often by resting a split on the flat, top section of the block that houses the throat. When that split and the ones around it eventually reduce to coals, it falls into place on its own. For some reason, creating that pocket seems to help. Maybe it allows the air to not have to travel across cooler splits that have not completely caught yet, therefore making it more hot before it enters the throat.
  
  In the morning
  
  In the morning there are still coals remaining, but not the 2-3 required to jump right back into the downdraft process. Also the stove has dropped to about 200 degrees (surface), which isnt hot enough. But the stack is still warm and the draft is moderately strong, so after loading with fresh splits it is only a few minutes before the fire is roaring again. However, it does take a while to rebuild the thick bed of coals necessary.
  
  So in the morning, the procedure is similar but different and goes something like:
  
  1) open bypass and reload about 1/2 way with small diameter splits (2-3") and open up air inlet all the way
  2) make big pot of coffee
  3) once the splits are about halfway to coals, jumble them w/ the poker to break off some coals and build up the coal bed
  4) completely load the firebox as normal, finish the pot of coffee, and revert to the previous posted steps and enjoy.
  
  Every fire is different based on the fuel & weather conditions, but its a procedure that seems to work often enough. So the morning procedure takes about an hour before the combustion system is ready to go again, which is less than half the time it takes starting a cold stove/stack.

 

[davidbradley360]

here are a few vids on Harman's Firedome technology. it's basically a perfected Riteway system using a lot better materials, and ceramic combustor, special bricks, etc. but the principle is the same. it sidedraft exits the smoke into a combustion chamber and hits it with secondary air. the problem I have with these stoves is, the stovepipe and flue temps are very high. the risk of a chimney fire is great. I know a guy who lost a beautiful custom built home using a wood burning furnace of different make but a similar design, it was wood gasification. the stovepipe going to the chimney caught the side of the house on fire, and it was far away but still caught it on fire. one false move with these stoves and it can cost you dearly due to the flue temps they run at. it's not something I'd want to leave at home unattended for 12 hours. that and they rely on a thick bed of red coals to operate as designed. lose that coal bed and secondary combustion stops.

adding these features makes it legal to sell the stoves in USA. that doesn't mean every owner is going to actually use them. much like disconnecting the EGR, air pump, or CAT on a car- I'm sure a lot of guys will just burn the stove in primary combustion mode, as a conventional burner. the EPA can't stand there 24/7 and dictate to everyone when the stove is switched to secondary mode. so you have to read the lines, then read between the lines, so to speak. same thing goes for the dual fuel coal/wood stoves, that are no longer legal for wood. people will still burn wood in them.

 

[davidbradley360]

I used a Riteway Model 37 for over 15 years and it was never hard to light!

I could light it off and walk away from it after five minutes.

The only time the bypass needed to be open was when the stove door was open.

You need to check your sources because the info you are posting is in direct conflict with 15 years of first hand personal experience.

And BTW, Riteway folded up after the owner died in a plane crash. I don't believe the plane crashed due to low oil prices!



.

many people have problems with those stoves. they aren't airtight. the main body is thin sheetmetal, not steel plate. I have a Riteway 37 and it's warped badly. the posts I just put up are from hearth dot com and they are a specialty wood burning site. shining a flashlight down the combustion flue on my Riteway 37, I can see slits of light down in the inlet valve damper area- meaning those passages will leak into each other, intake into exhaust and vice versa. the intake draft leaks all around the 2 slanted bricks in the base of combustion flue, they are not sealed. sure you can start it up and close the damper and walk away, but is it going into secondary combustion as designed ? that requires a flue temp of 450 F. If not, then it's just burning it like a big old fashioned wood stove anyway. there's no secondary combustion, just side outlet. there are loads of reports about that design not functioning well all the time. I like the big capacity firebox, but the thin sides are a definite neg. the firebricks are the only thing that gives it any structure or beef. I can post many references here supporting this but do we really have to go there.

here is the side of my Riteway, notice how it's warped. the sides are about as thick as a 55 gallon drum, or less. by comparison my Harman is 1/4" thick hardened steel plate welded, and will last a few centuries. having said this I like the Riteway for what it was and is. we're going to use it to heat an outbuilding. it would also make a good basement or cabin/cottage stove. but I would not want that in my living room. the sides are too thin and intuition tells me it may be a fire hazard.

before using it, I'm going to seal all the gaps between the firebricks with refractory and furnace cement, especially the combustion flue bricks. yesterday I took apart the thermostat and repaired that, the wheel inside was crooked and not working smoothly. these are old stoves now, they need service. I may add spinner draft controls on the secondary flue side, and on the firebox door, so above fire and secondary is fine adjustable.

 

[davidbradley360]

Why would the stove pipe and flue temperatures be any higher than any catalytic or high tech secondary air woodstove? All catalytic stoves by design have the catalytic combustor placed after the gasses leave the firebox. Another BTW, I never once had secondary combustion stop in my Model 37 after the fire caught on. If catalytic combustion had stopped the cat would have become plugged, and smoke would have entered the house. It never happened, not even once. Both of my Riteway catalytic combustor are ceramic, right from the factory.

if the temps drop, the secondary combustion stops in the flue. flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove. if it drops, that's not going to instantly presto block the cat. it will just smoke out the chimney. the Riteway didn't even have an airtight inlet/outlet design. it was a very cheaply made stove. I have one and have it apart. all these gaps around the flue bricks, leak air into the inlet damper area below it. seriously you can't think this was good ? these stoves were just slapped together.

 

[davidbradley360]

And BTW, Riteway folded up after the owner died in a plane crash. I don't believe the plane crashed due to low oil prices!
.

I was under the impression the company was sold first. but I remember clearly, in the 1980's everyone getting rid of their wood burners. fuel prices stabilized and even came down a lot. I passed on a pile of free stoves that people were getting rid of. we used to scrap them like crazy, no one wanted them. now everyone is switching to coal. wood has become more expensive than coal. I load my coal stove and can leave the house for 2 days, and when I return it's still burning. long burn times are easy with coal. wood is getting harder to get for free, unless you own standing timber. then again that's not really free, cuz then the owner is paying the property taxes on the land. they have all the angles covered.

 

[davidbradley360]

the Riteway when first produced, had no cat. They only started putting that in very late in the company's life, around 1982. Why would you even want a cat ? The original stove design worked by simply injecting secondary air into the exhaust stream half way up the stove, from the mid-flue level.

in my area of the northeast, our stoves are not regulated locally by any ordinances. we can burn a 100 year old stove direct draft with just a manual pipe damper, if we want. totally legal, for now. who in their right mind would add a cat to it ?

Why in the heck would you even want a cat or recirc stove ? the only reason I can see having one, is if it's mandated by law and would result in fines. IMHO it's like putting a cat and EGR on a 1957 Chevy. didn't have it originally, and not worth installing.

read this page, most of it is complaints. some people have replaced cats 4x in their stove at $360 each. link below is an entire page of mostly cat complaints

http://chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm

 

[oldspark]

"flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove"
Well mine sure was but a cat stove has low flue temps does it not.
You see all sorts of posts about the new stoves cat or not cat and having lower flue temps but that was never the case with my Summit.

 

[Steve NW WI]

Del - a little clarifying on your thickness posts. I work with steel all day, so I thought I'd help the average joe out with gauge/thickness conversion - 18ga is .048" thick, 14ga=.074", 10ga=.134". Like in shotgun sizes, gauge thickness isn't linear.

"flue temp in any secondary burn/cat stove is 2x-4x higher, than in a conventional stove"
Well mine sure was but a cat stove has low flue temps does it not.
You see all sorts of posts about the new stoves cat or not cat and having lower flue temps but that was never the case with my Summit.

Flue temperature isn't directly tied to the type of burn system, more so of the design of the stove and how much exhaust heat is transferred to the stove, and therefore the room, before it goes out the pipe. My old Woodchuck had basically a hole in the top of the back panel, with just a baffle to slow the gases - you could see the flames going up the pipe if you opened the door with a fire going. High flue temps - 700-800 was common. My new stove (Drolet) is secondary combustion, plus the smoke takes a trip across the length of the stove before it hits the stove pipe. Wound up tight, I might hit 700. On a nice hot average fire, it's 300-400 measured in approximately the same place.

 

[davidbradley360]

The Cat in mine was a factory kit I bought and installed myself, so I have seen how the stove is built.

I wanted the Cat because of how Cats work, increasing efficiency and leaving a cleaner chimney. Mine worked fine and was $80. for a replacement cat back then. I bought a replacement only to find the original still worked fine, so I have two.

You seem to have mistaken notions about how a cat works and what it does. It is nothing like putting an EGR valve on a 57 Chevy. The cat does not recirc unburn gasses back into the firebox but instead burns these gasses after the firebox is through with them.


putting a cat on your wood stove, is exactly like putting a cat on a 57 Chevy. it's the same type of exhaust emission device. if it works to your liking that should be good enough for you. what I don't like are government mandates saying everyone else has to use them too. that's taking it a little too far. I don't like the feedback I read about those devices from many buyers. my friend had a stove with a cat installed new and he could not even get it to burn. he sold the house with the stove and never heated a day with it.

there's 19 letters on this page, and a good % of them are rants against cats where the owners had to replace them like 5 times, got low heat, etc. even the author and owner of the site is skeptical about them. I never used one, nor do I have to, or want to. there does not appear to be a high success rate with them.
http://chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm
for every one of those cats that work well, there's 2 or 3 that don't. here is a typical response

Letter #19: Tired of replacing converters
Good morning. If you don't mind taking a minute or two to answer a question, I have a VC Defiant, that is 13 years old. I must have replaced my catalytic converter 4x. Now all of the refractory gaskets that hold it in place are deteriorated. To be honest, I'm tired of this woodstove, how every year I have to put a couple hundred dollars into it. My question is, have you guys come across any owners of this stove, who have said the heck with the catalyst, and removed it, installed a manual damper in the flue pipe, and just ran it like an old fashioned woodstove?
Thanks for your time, Frank

Sirs, I have been burning wood in my home for the last 25 years, starting with an old pot belly stove in the early '80's which I replaced with a (non-catalytic) Vermont Casting Resolute Acclaim that lasted until 2 years ago.
I burn my woodstove 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and go through 7 cords of wood per season. It is my main source of heat, although I have an oil burner that I use as backup.
I thought I was buying a good stove when I purchased a Lennox Earth Stove model 1003C with a catalytic converter. I was told that I would get 8 to 12 hours of burn time.Well, humbug. Six large dry logs on a 3 to 4 inch deep bed of hot coals at 11 pm, and by 3 am the oil burner kicks on as the wood fire dies down and goes out.
The catalytic converter clogs up badly during heavy use and did not last 1 year. I went to many places online and in person to try and get a replacement converter, until finally East Coast Fireplaces here in New Jersey was able to get me one at a price of $360.00 (a bit much, I felt, but I needed the stove working).
Now, the hinges on the door have broken.
I have contacted the dealer that I purchased the stove from and he no longer carries this brand for he says they do not return his calls. I have sent many emails to Lennox and have had no satisfaction whatsoever with them.
Is there a stove that will actually hold up to being used 24/7? From what I have experienced, all the nonsense of burn time is a farce: am I wrong? I am interested in what you may have experienced, and in any info you have regarding something better than what I have. Thank You for your time.
Bruce Normand
Freehold, New Jersey

Letter #5: Tired of waiting for lightoff, can't wait to switch!
I built a house about 15 years ago and put in a [non-catalytic] Kent. I will not waste time praising this stove but only say I sure wish I had not sold it with the house.
I have lived with and used many other stoves since then (not by choice). My recent nightmare is a catalytic Englander. I just cannot wait until I can afford to replace this monster. An hour to light the stupid thing? I am surprised I don’t have to sing it a little song as well. If I could find some sucker who likes the catalytic technology to sell this thing to I would dump it before breakfast.
Xavier

Letter #18: Catalytic model difficult to operate
Hi,
Feel free to ignore me, but I just feel the need to vent my frustration over my cat stove and I can literally find no online presence other than you who doesn't seem to think they are wonderful. So easy, so efficient, so long-burning, so much more heat from your wood. As far as I can tell that is a load of crap. I have been busting my ass for three years now to figure out how I can get this stove to do what they all say it does continuously and automatically, and I think I know the answer: Burn only kiln-dried wood in it. Give the fire enough air to burn relatively clean on its own, and you fry the cat. Try to protect the cat, and half the time you find your stove temp down in the 200's and it takes half an hour to get it back on track. Unless you have perfectly dry wood, of course. But in the real world, each load of wood has a slightly different moisture content, and a percentage point this way or that seems to tip the stove one way or the other. With a non-cat stove, if I burn the wood at full flame like I would in a pre-EPA stove, it doesn't matter to the secondary air tubes. When they burn smoke they are just as hot. This system seems much more flexible and less fragile than the cat system, am I right? And it seems to me that the cat stove makers have neglected one of the three crucial ingredients of combustion: oxygen. Maybe if there were a secondary source of oxygen for the combustor, it wouldn't keep going out. Anyway, in the spring I am getting rid of this thing and replacing it with a non-cat model. That way I just have to make sure the wood is burning and I know the stove will do what it is supposed to do. Thanks for listening.
Adam
Oh, and I just have to complain about one other thing. This is a Woodstock Fireview I'm ranting about, and when they first designed it, it was a top loader with side venting, so air flowed along the logs lengthwise from the bottom. Good airflow, good predictable firebox heating. Now, you load it through an undersized side door, and air flows from the top front against the side of the logs. The smoke exits right next to where the air enters, so as you can imagine that part of the stove has no trouble getting hot, but just TRY to get the lower rear of the stove hot without overfiring the combustor! Just try it someday!

 

[Eric Modell]

Davidbradly have you ever burned a Riteway? I have never experienced any of the problems you are expounding about. They are not the best built or most modern engineered stove, but my Ritewys have and do a good for me. I currently have two. What problems are you having with the secondary combustion? Like Dell said open if you are going to load wood. I keep it closed even if I am building a col bed, it starts faster and puts out more heat.

 

[davidbradley360]

here is an interesting video. I would not wan to dish a couple g's for a new stove, that didn't heat. sure it may burn the wood efficiently, but that is only half the formula for net efficiency. the other half is heat transfer to the home. efficient combustion without heat transfer, means a cold house

 

[davidbradley360]

Davidbradly have you ever burned a Riteway? I have never experienced any of the problems you are expounding about. They are not the best built or most modern engineered stove, but my Ritewys have and do a good for me. I currently have two. What problems are you having with the secondary combustion? Like Dell said open if you are going to load wood. I keep it closed even if I am building a col bed, it starts faster and puts out more heat.

well that's the keyword, coal bed. it's difficult to maintain that coal bed, and lose it, it takes a day to build it back up again. I question the heat transfer of the combustion flue, it's relatively small and how much heat can it radiate ? many who have used those stoves, got more heat in direct draft mode, than in indirect mode- with both wood and coal.

I've burned an Atlanta Homesteader for 4 years in the 1990's. It was basically a Riteway without the combustion flue side exit feature, only a top side exit, a conventional cabinet stove. That's all a Riteway is, a cabinet design with an additional combustion flue, and 2 vent louvers in place of 2 other firebricks. These types of stoves are still available new at Tractor Supply for $750 right now. I was looking at one yesterday. I do own a Riteway 37 as well. we're going to put it in a 2 car garage most likely. I would not heat my house with that. currently I'm heating my house with 2 tons of anthracite coal/year with a Harman Mark I that I bought around 2001. My yearly heat bill is $400 now and I don't have to fell, cut, buck, transport, split, stack, carry wood. I'd have to burn 4-6 cords of wood to equal the heat I get from that coal. and the coal fire will burn 24-36 hours on one load, with as much particulate emissions as oil or gas heat. coal stoves are currently EPA legal without any cat or secondary burn, they have very low particulate emissions, lower than the best wood stove made. it's a matter of geographics as we have many anthracite strip mines here and dirt cheap coal prices. common sense. wood is great heat but when it's no longer free, other methods are cheaper and more effective. we own a 50 acre plot with standing timber, I can get all the wood I want for free. but I'd spend more money heating with wood, than just using coal. for the cost of one good Husky chainsaw I heat my house for 2 years. we're fortunate in that we have many strip mines located nearby. I pay $200/ton delivered, but can drive in and get it for $165/ton with my own truck. wood by the cord is actually more expensive now.

it all comes own to burn times, and what's your time worth getting firewood. even a minimum wage job at Burger King pays $7.50/hour. If I spent a week or two processing firewood every year to burn, I'm way ahead just buying the 2 tons of coal for now, and using my time for other pursuits. this isn't even calculating how much gas in the truck and chainsaws, bar oil, chains, etc. I'd use up getting firewood.

 

[davidbradley360]

here are my concerns with the Riteway bypass mode, it just doesn't seem to work sometimes ?

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:11 am
Rob R. wrote:Are you running the "direct damper" with the handle in the down position? (so the flue gasses go out the side of the firebox).

Hey Rob, I have been running my stove, very similar to this one, with the diverter handle in the up position. With it in the down position it diverts the hot gasses right out of the flue without the benefit of heating the mass of metal that the firebox is. I started doing this in the really cold days when I couldn't get enough heat out of the stove to keep up. I noticed my flue was really hot 300+,and the firebox was relatively cool mid 300's.
Now when I have the stove in the exact same setting and conditions but the handle in the up position, my flue temps go way down to 210* and my stove temps go up to 412*
That diverter never made any sense to me in that why would you want to let the hot gasses escape without the benefit of its heating, I'm really not sure as to why they even have it on the stove, can you or someone enlighten me on this, am I wrong in some way. Really has been puzzling me.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:57 am
I decided to do a little study on my stove yesterday and my findings confirm that having this stove in the direct mode produces the most efficient burn in terms of extracting the heat from the fuel. I'm not trying to dispute what you fellas are saying to me about the proper function of this stove and others like it, just trying to settle things in my mind.
So here are the results. The stove was filled three hours prior to this test and all volatiles had been burnt off. The stove was at a stable temperature for an hour steady.
I started with the stove in the direct mode, handle up. The stove temp is 309* and stack is 163*. I then dropped the handle down to indirect mode. I did not open the door or adjust anything. I waited for an hour and a half and the stove temp was 280* and stack temp was 261*. As you can see I lost almost 30* in stove temp and gained 98* in stack temp. To confirm my findings I flipped the handle back up to direct mode and the temps quickly, in 30 mins, returned very close to the original temps.
It's curious to me as to the design of this indirect mode because as said earlier its forcing the gasses out the bottom, thus not allowing the hot gasses to pass by the bulk of the stove metal and warming it. The gasses just exit in the middle of the coal bed and right out to the flue, there is no extended path to take. It confirms to me anyway that in the indirect mode a lot of heat is escaping out of the flue without the benefit of its energy. Where am I wrong in this, please tell me, it's a bit puzzling to me.
Just for the record, my stove heats the house in either mode with no problems except when its single digits, then it struggles in the indirect mode to keep the house above 70* whereas in the direct mode it just cruises along on setting 3,1/4.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:49 pm
LsFarm wrote:...

But an increase in flue temps HAS to be the result of a direct pathway from the fire to the flue..
More passageway=more surface to absorb heat=lower temps in the exhaust gasses..

Greg L..


And there in lies the problem. The so called indirect pathway is no more that closing the upper route and opening a route to the flue through the coal bed. What I am saying is that the air feeds from under the bed like any stove but instead of exhausting through the top the gasses now have a route right at mid depth of the coal bed. There is no extra passageway to force the exhaust up then down then up again, it just goes right on out.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:19 pm
Yes as I understand it is a riteway clone. I actually thought the Hitzer 82 and also this model shared the same design, but now that you point this out maybe they are not the same internally. I did burn wood in it this past fall and will so this spring, but I honestly forget what position the handle was in when I burnt wood. i did not get any literature with this stove as far as the operation goes, I've just went by what I could pick up on this site. I think at this point a call to DS would be warranted to get the actual low down in the operation of this stove directly from the manufacturer.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: samhill On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:25 am
I have a 75 in my garage that I burn wood in (not there enough for coal) but without any temp taking or measuring just going by what I experience BD is correct, I tried different control settings & I get more heat just by using the lever up position than by directing the draft lower & get longer burn times as well.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:01 pm
Well since that post during last years burn season and that unscientific study I did I have been burning it in the direct exhaust configuration(arm up). I have to say this beast has zero issues in heating my home this way even with these extreme cold days that have been passing through. The heat is much more uniform also, in that I mean after I fill it in the evening and give it a couple hours to settle on a temp, it will stay at that temp through to the next day unless I decide to change the setting on the bi-metal stat. Like I said in another post, It may not be the most efficient stove out there but I'll never run out of enough thermostat to make things warm in the house.

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: EarthWindandFire On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:12 pm
I created this thread eighteen months ago, how come nobody ever told me to leave the handle in the UP position ???

Re: Hitzer 75 Coal Stove.
By: Bruce M On: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:17 pm

 

[Eric Modell]

Davidbradley I think you are confusing the awessome Riteway wirh the inferior Hitzer. The only reason I am commenting is all the complaints you are quoting is the knock-off not the real thing. I am not saying the the Riteway is any thing special but mine is putting out insane heat right now with the secondary combustion engaged. Should I open up the secondary burn chamber and let the heat go up the pipe???

 

[flotek]

A campfire in a box will heat most houses if your willing to feed it enough fuel .as far as flue my furnace has a flue temperature of 150-200 burning hot with a full load of dry seasoned slabs .I can put my hand on my flue most of the time ,that's good!!it means the advanced secondary heat exchanger is doing its job and keeping my BTUs in the unit Not going up the flue pipe like most all other old school furnaces if your pipe is over 400 your probably wasting a lot of your heat to the great outdoors

 

[davidbradley360]

I'm not sure of the exact measurements of the thickness of the Model 37 compared to a 55 gallon drum but I bet the Riteway is at least five times the thickness.(Just looked it up. Steel barrels mostly are 18ga, The Riteway is 14 and 10ga.) I say this as I have cut though the Model 37 to install a catalytic view port, so I've experienced the thickness first hand. You are flat out posting misinformation saying the Riteway may be thinner than a 55 gallon barrel. I also never had problems with air leaks. Your stove looks to have been greatly over fired to the point of being damaged. I do agree with you though about the Model 37 not being a 'living room' woodstove. First of all, it's huge. It's ugly, too. Mine was in a finished basement under the main living space.

I'll attempt to attach a copy of some Riteway information. It has the metal thickness listed. It weighs 415 pounds, just a little heavier than a 55 gallon barrel.

I just went out and measured my Riteway 37. The walls are only .131" thick. If this is your idea of a top notch stove, then you should be happy with that. My Harman is 1/4" plate steel, if I shot it with my 45 ACP, the bullet would bounce off the side. There is something to be said about thicker plate steel. It's better. actually if you're looking for a "good" stove, it should have a minimum of 1/4" thickness

these stoves are a bit on the thin side. That's why this one I have, is warped. I'd bet many of them are. Here's a reference on the issue.

http://www.ehow.com/how_110299_buy-wood-stove.html


4
Understand the technology in catalytic stoves ($1,000 to $2,000). A catalytic combustor cuts normal burn temperatures in half for a slow, controlled fire with the fewest emissions. Look for a cast iron or plate-steel stove body 1/4 inch (6 mm) thick and a tight closing bypass plate 5/16 inch (8 mm) thick. Also look for a design that protects the combustor from direct flame.

5
Consider non-catalytic (recirculating) stoves ($500 to $2,200) for their two-chamber combustion, which injects jets of preheated air into the fire to boost heat and reduce emissions. Look for a cast-iron or plate-steel body 1/4 inch (6 mm) thick. To resist warping, the fire chamber's baffle should be 5/16-inch (8 mm) plate steel with V-shaped supports. These models have no combustor to maintain, but their smaller fireboxes mean you'll have to use shorter logs and load them more frequently.

 

[davidbradley360]

A campfire in a box will heat most houses if your willing to feed it enough fuel .as far as flue my furnace has a flue temperature of 150-200 burning hot with a full load of dry seasoned slabs .I can put my hand on my flue most of the time ,that's good!!it means the advanced secondary heat exchanger is doing its job and keeping my BTUs in the unit Not going up the flue pipe like most all other old school furnaces if your pipe is over 400 your probably wasting a lot of your heat to the great outdoors

you would not want a campfire box in your living room of a $200k home, next to your sectional couch and curtains. that's a recipe for disaster. I want more than a piece of sheetmetal between my house and the fire in the box.

 

[Steve NW WI]

Ehow, the world's foremost authority on engineering and stove safety. Get a life, man.