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

[CTYank]

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.

Now there's a blanket statement or two. Speak up Spidey. Oldspark, you might want to study up some on how combustion of solid fuels takes place. It's not a matter of smoke/no-smoke. That's waaay simplistic. There are many types of emissions.
What matters is how completely combustion takies place over what ranges of conditions. You can't extract heat from what's unburnt.
Ride around in the backcountry up north, and you'll see plenty of "old stoves" waving their white flag.
Spidey, how about some relaxation therapy? If you and others would stop screaming and stamping their feet, we might talk. And listen.
There's no situation where we can't learn, a lot even. First, think "I don't know everything."

 

[oldspark]

Now there's a blanket statement or two. Speak up Spidey. Oldspark, you might want to study up some on how combustion of solid fuels takes place. It's not a matter of smoke/no-smoke. That's waaay simplistic. There are many types of emissions.
What matters is how completely combustion takies place over what ranges of conditions. You can't extract heat from what's unburnt.
Ride around in the backcountry up north, and you'll see plenty of "old stoves" waving their white flag.
Spidey, how about some relaxation therapy? If you and others would stop screaming and stamping their feet, we might talk. And listen.
There's no situation where we can't learn, a lot even. First, think "I don't know everything."

All I said was secondary combustion takes place in a hot fire, and I can find a link stating that, not sure why you are reading more into my post.

 

[Whitespider]

OK CTYank... I'll speak-up.
In an older stove that feeds air under the fire (smoke dragon) there's always enough oxygen remaining, after the primary burn, to initiate what's commonly called on this web site as secondary burn or combustion... enough heat is all that's required.
So yeah... I agree with oldspark...
Secondary combustion happens when the fire is hot enough, the old stoves do not smoke at that point in time... blanket statement or not, it's the truth.

The addition of what's commonly called on this web site as secondary air isn't a requirement... it simply makes secondary combustion easier to achieve at lower fire temperature.
But then-again, feeding air under the fire, rather than above the fire, causes a much hotter burn (like in a forge)... so... secondary air is not required if you run them properly (choking them down too much ain't running them properly).
From what I saw running my EPA box; that thing made more smoke (before secondary combustion started) than any smoke dragon I've ever used... and I attribute that directly to the improper feeding of air to the fire (i.e., over the top). That's sort'a dirty trick, don't ya think?? Intentionally causing a poor primary burn just to facilitate and easier secondary burn?? I know it pizzed me off to no friggin' end.
*

 

[flotek]

It's not a question of if it's over or under. ..An Englander furnace( owned one for half a decade) has air coming in from a slide damper above the wood and flames and it does nothing for secondary re burn . True secondary is nice because it just kind of slows the whole process of burning down and still puts out good heat instead of a cool dirty smolder.the outside air must be routed around and preheated then introduced above the fire and sent through small holes once the temperature is high enough it ignites. Just adding air above a fire does nothing to get that extra 30% burnt off

 

[Whitespider]

True secondary is nice because it just kind of slows the whole process of burning down...

Say what??
That secondary combustion box I have (being used in the shop now) burns down to a bed of (non-heating) coals faster than any I've ever owned.
*

 

[Whitespider]

It's not a question of if it's over or under. An Englander furnace (owned one for half a decade) has air coming in from a slide damper above the wood and flames and it does nothing for secondary re burn.

And it's not intended to initiate secondary combustion (they don't have a secondary combustion air feed), it's intended to keep the glass clean, just like the primary air (door air wash) is in a secondary combustion box.
I actually looked seriously at an Englander last year before the DAKA fell in my lap... the only thing that held me back from buying it was the air coming in from the top.
Your above statement just adds credence to mine...
"...feeding air under the fire, rather than above the fire, causes a much hotter burn (like in a forge)... so... secondary air is not required..."

addendum; And don't forget, the Englander has a draft spinner knob located on the ash door to allow air in under the fire‼

...most of the old smoke dragons enter via screw knobs in their doors a few inched off of the bottom of the firebox.

All of the ones I'm familiar with, including the one before the EPA box and the one dad has now, had screw knobs on the doors... and those doors were of double wall construction that fed the air under the grate... basically they feed the air into the ash collection area under the grate. Even my DAKA combustion air intake is located above the grate on the outside of the box, but there's a welded channel that feeds it under the grate (into the ash collection area) inside the box. I ain't tryin' to say there weren't some stupid deigns in the past... I'm just sayin I was never unlucky enough to own one.
*

 

[flotek]

Yes that's true there is a spin draft on the ash drawer of an Englander but the top slide is really where the settings takeplace it is not simply for air wash the spin draft must be barely open if you expect to get more than. 4 hrs burn time out of it once you have ran one for five years you get to know their limitations . however it's still better than a cheap daka from what I can see the daka features and specs are bare bones minimum but then again there cheap cost reflects that . True secondary air system has real world positive results

 

[Whitespider]

...it's still better than a cheap daka from what I can see the daka features and specs are bare bones minimum but then again there cheap cost reflects that.

I'm not gettin' where this "cheap" price, compared to the Englander, comes from??
Actually, the Englander is "cheaper" than the DAKA... but for $100.oo more the DAKA offers some nice features the Englander don't.

Home Depot sells the Englander for $1200.oo...
Menards sells the DAKA 621 (comparable to the Englander at 125,000 BTU) for $1300.oo... (By-the-way, my DAKA model sells for $1900.oo at Menards).
The 621 has a real cast grate, an automatic draft control, a secondary heat chamber controlled with a sliding baffle, two warm air outlets, and is rated for coal... heck, it even weighs more‼
The Englander has... well... a glass door.

Unless you really want the glass door... and are willing to live with that stupid over-fire combustion air intake... why buy the Englander??
*

 

[Eric Modell]

The 621 has a real cast grate, an automatic draft control, a secondary heat chamber controlled with a sliding baffle,

*[/quote]
Sounds like my Riteway 37, cast iron grate, automatic draft control, and a sliding baffle secondary burn control.

 

[davidbradley360]

the dirty little secret about EPA stoves is this- they tout 30% less wood consumption than a conventional old stove. the only way to get that, is with 30% less primary DRAFT. so basically they are smoldering the fire down lower and attempting to burn that smoke to clean up emissions, while recovering BTU's from the smoke, to get the stove to put out a comparable BTU rating to an old conventional stove that's wide open using more draft. one thing about old stoves, they may have ate a lot of wood, but they also put out a lot of HEAT. I'm skeptical about how well these new stoves heat a home, with equal firebox size to an old stove. Because if they use 30% less wood, there's only one way to do that, and that's with 30% less draft.

from another common sense standpoint, are things so BAD in this country now, that we have to try to burn smoke, instead of just throwing a few more logs on the fire ? when our family did heat with wood, it was 6 cords a year to heat a relatively big home. a 30% wood savings would mean, not even 2 cords barely.

if things are so bad that I can't afford 2 more cords of wood, in labor or cost- at that point there's something seriously wrong with the entire system and economy. even at today's wood prices that's only $440 for 2 cords delivered. If I can't afford that much more expense a year to heat my house, then I can't afford a house, or a life. That's less than one month's gas money in our family cars now. we need to turn towards the corporations and financial institutions that are causing this situation, and call them on the carpet for it. instead we let them point at our chimneys and say it's smoking too much, while we struggle to save a few dimes heating with wood. this is like watching a puppy get beat up by a full grown german shepherd, and not being able to help the puppy.

at this rate I'll be getting only one creamer with my coffee, and only one ketchup with my burger, at the fast food joint and donut drive through, and that is exactly what's happening. they ARE putting less creamers and sugars and condiments in the bag. austerity is being forced upon us, by the banking system and financial structure. this is BS already, these are the same guys living in 25,000 square foot mansions and burning $5000 worth of fuel oil a month, to heat them.

while we scrimp, burn a few pieces of wood, and have to throw a lever to reburn the smoke, if we want more heat. under the guise of emissions and saving the environment ? c'mon guys, wake up- everyone is being screwed here. if they are forcing us to use wood stoves that use less draft, and smokes less, then they are regulating the very AIR that surrounds us. they are taxing and policing the AIR in your home !! they have no right to it.

there's no bread...let them eat cake ? after your eat your sandwich, is you're still hungry, then sweep up the crumbs and eat them next. burn the smoke from your fires, for more heat. can't you see what's being done here ? it all boils down to more for them, and less for you.

I think the "savings" from buying these expensive high end, high tech EPA stoves, is overly exaggerated. and I see a lot of them being put up for sale lately. the market is flooded. $220/cord wood here locally, means wood is more expensive than coal. it also has more particulate pollution than coal. where are we going with this ? where's the advantage ?

I have several family members who heat their homes using natural gas, including the hot water, for $220-$260 month. if there's a natural gas line in front of your house, that's the best bet. why spend more to have less convenience and the mess, and risk a chimney fire to boot, heating with any alternate fuel and stove.

I think it's time for everyone to take a step back and re-evaluate alternate heating, because it's getting more expensive by the year, to the point it's costing many people more money, than just running their main furnace on city gas. of course this may change in the future. but for now, there's a glut of nat gas, prices are cheap for it.

 

[Whitespider]

Very, very well said davidbradley360, very well said...
And to quote myself...
"That's sort'a dirty trick, don't ya think?? Intentionally causing a poor primary burn just to facilitate and easier secondary burn?? I know it pizzed me off to no friggin' end."

addendum; And don't forget, the proposed new regulations reduce the existing allowable emissions by 80%, include more types of appliances, and outright outlaw some others. That's what happens when you give government an inch... they'll come back and take a mile every time. Indirectly I blame those who have defended EPA regulations and the stoves they inspired as a "good thing"... it never is, never has been, and never will be a "good thing" when government "regulates" our private lives, directly or indirectly.
*

 

[oldspark]

I am more then willing to say my EPA stove cant carry my pre EPA's stoves jock strap but there are reasons for the regulations are there not, some parts of the country have a lot of wood burners in a area causing a ton of pollution , some of that is due to bad burning practices but they had their reasons.
Not sure why we living in a more open area with very few burning wood have to go by the same regulations.

 

[Whitespider]

We should not have to abide by the same regulations oldspark… that’s the point.

There ain’t anything Constitutionally wrong with local government enacting law, ordinance or regulation to address local issues… provided the majority of voters in that locality want such. For that matter, there ain’t anything wrong for State government to do the same… provided the State Constitution allows such power and the majority of voters want such. The State of California has enacted emission laws/regulations prior to Federal laws/regulations for decades… and still has many much tighter. Even without Federal intervention, manufacturers in the free market produced products to meet the demand in California… and still do‼

The remainder of the country is still at liberty to choose… they may purchase California compliant products if they choose. People living in California are also still at liberty to choose… if they’re unhappy with State law, ordinance or regulation they may choose to move to an area more to their liking. A Federal “regulation” removes those liberties from all of us…

So how has the Federal Government accomplished this??
Simple… by bastardizing the “Commerce Clause” during the FDR administration. FDR was so enraged by the SCOTUS continuously limiting his power during the first term he actually proposed, “packing the Court" with sympathetic justices by increasing its size from nine to fifteen. Although he didn’t get that accomplished, he did appoint 9 judges to the SCOTUS during his presidency and nearly 200 to lesser courts. Eventually the power of federal government under the “Commerce Clause” was expanded to the point our Founding Fathers would be ashamed. We've had to live under that horrendous damage ever since… only in recent years has some (small bits) of that expanded power been reigned back in by SCOTUS.

OK... that's enough politics... don't feel like goin' campin'.
*

 

[Whitespider]

.....and like burning smoke is a bad thing?

Nope, not a "bad" thing... but the "regulation" requiring you to do so is... no matter what the perceived "good".
*

 

[oldspark]

The smoldering comment about secondary burning stoves is just plain wrong.

 

[oldspark]

Nope, not a "bad" thing... but the "regulation" requiring you to do so is... no matter what the perceived "good".
*

So you want no regulation at all, what all does this include.

 

[Steve NW WI]

First things first. The next person to go off on a political rant in this post gets a warning, and the whole mess gets tossed over the fence into political. Is that clear?

the dirty little secret about EPA stoves is this- they tout 30% less wood consumption than a conventional old stove. the only way to get that, is with 30% less primary DRAFT. so basically they are smoldering the fire down lower and attempting to burn that smoke to clean up emissions, while recovering BTU's from the smoke, to get the stove to put out a comparable BTU rating to an old conventional stove that's wide open using more draft. one thing about old stoves, they may have ate a lot of wood, but they also put out a lot of HEAT. I'm skeptical about how well these new stoves heat a home, with equal firebox size to an old stove. Because if they use 30% less wood, there's only one way to do that, and that's with 30% less draft.

from another common sense standpoint, are things so BAD in this country now, that we have to try to burn smoke, instead of just throwing a few more logs on the fire ? when our family did heat with wood, it was 6 cords a year to heat a relatively big home. a 30% wood savings would mean, not even 2 cords barely.

if things are so bad that I can't afford 2 more cords of wood, in labor or cost- at that point there's something seriously wrong with the entire system and economy. even at today's wood prices that's only $440 for 2 cords delivered. If I can't afford that much more expense a year to heat my house, then I can't afford a house, or a life. That's less than one month's gas money in our family cars now. we need to turn towards the corporations and financial institutions that are causing this situation, and call them on the carpet for it. instead we let them point at our chimneys and say it's smoking too much, while we struggle to save a few dimes heating with wood. this is like watching a puppy get beat up by a full grown german shepherd, and not being able to help the puppy.

at this rate I'll be getting only one creamer with my coffee, and only one ketchup with my burger, at the fast food joint and donut drive through, and that is exactly what's happening. they ARE putting less creamers and sugars and condiments in the bag. austerity is being forced upon us, by the banking system and financial structure. this is BS already, these are the same guys living in 25,000 square foot mansions and burning $5000 worth of fuel oil a month, to heat them.

while we scrimp, burn a few pieces of wood, and have to throw a lever to reburn the smoke, if we want more heat. under the guise of emissions and saving the environment ? c'mon guys, wake up- everyone is being screwed here. if they are forcing us to use wood stoves that use less draft, and smokes less, then they are regulating the very AIR that surrounds us. they are taxing and policing the AIR in your home !! they have no right to it.

there's no bread...let them eat cake ? after your eat your sandwich, is you're still hungry, then sweep up the crumbs and eat them next. burn the smoke from your fires, for more heat. can't you see what's being done here ? it all boils down to more for them, and less for you.

I think the "savings" from buying these expensive high end, high tech EPA stoves, is overly exaggerated. and I see a lot of them being put up for sale lately. the market is flooded. $220/cord wood here locally, means wood is more expensive than coal. it also has more particulate pollution than coal. where are we going with this ? where's the advantage ?

I have several family members who heat their homes using natural gas, including the hot water, for $220-$260 month. if there's a natural gas line in front of your house, that's the best bet. why spend more to have less convenience and the mess, and risk a chimney fire to boot, heating with any alternate fuel and stove.

I think it's time for everyone to take a step back and re-evaluate alternate heating, because it's getting more expensive by the year, to the point it's costing many people more money, than just running their main furnace on city gas. of course this may change in the future. but for now, there's a glut of nat gas, prices are cheap for it.

I burn wood because:

It is byproduct of owning property. It'll go to waste if I don't burn it. If it falls in a field, or onto a fence, I have to process it anyway, at least minimally. You obviously weren't raised "rural poor" if you'd rather waste 1/3 of your wood by sending it out the chimney. Waste not, want not.

It is cheaper. My cost of production is FAR less than I could buy it for locally, but even good hardwood at $200-$250/cord (I'm just outside the Minneapolis metro area, and prices reflect that) is cheaper than $2 propane, or electric at $.12/KWH

I actually ENJOY working firewood, and enjoy wood heat even more. It's as much a lifestyle to me as it is a choice.

My stove was not inexpensive, at $1200 with some new pipe, a circulating fan, etc., but it was right in the price range of the smaller non-EPA furnaces, and substantially cheaper than a unit like the Kuuma (I might have spent the money for either type of furnace were it not for an already low ceiling in the basement and making them even lower with the ductwork installed at required clearances)

I'm at almost exactly a year of heating with this stove. In that time, (remember the cold spring we had and the recent long cold snap), I've put 6 cords through it. The old Woodchuck was burning 10 a year in a cold year. That's 4 cords I don't need to cut or buy, or continue to cut the same amount and sell. $1200 extra a year pays for a really nice vacation to go somewhere and watch cars chase each other in circles.

Does my stove put out less heat than the old one, yes. It's also half the size of the old one. It's ENOUGH to keep me comfortable down to about -10F without propane assist, which is all I can really expect given that there's no one around to fill it when I'm gone 10-12 hours a day at work. Even with the old stove, the furnace would often kick on toward the end of a load of wood in cold weather.

I can see why your rants got locked up at the other site, and while we're more tolerant here, my tolerance tank is getting down there.

 

[Steve NW WI]

Forgot to put that savings in terms Spidey will understand. That 4 cords a year, $1200, is the equivalent of 65 cases of Bud a year, more if you buy it on sale.

 

[Whitespider]

So you want no regulation at all...

I've never advocated that... ever‼
Read my post at the top of this page... I clearly spell-it-out.

 

[Whitespider]

Forgot to put that savings in terms Spidey will understand. That 4 cords a year, $1200, is the equivalent of 65 cases of Bud a year, more if you buy it on sale.

Yeah but...
If'n ya' haf'ta cut more wood, ya' don't haf'ta buy the extra beer, 'cause ya' ain't got time to drink it... see, it's a wash not a savings
*