OAK good :) not according to these guys :(...web found

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about the BTUs that are lost from burning and exhausting heated air from inside the building. A pellet stove with a powered exhaust discharges an awful lot of air that was once heated from inside the building and that air, according to the article, will be replaced with unheated air. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Ron

http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hooa3.htm

And here is the other side. I'm all for OAK, myself.

You can give me all the technical data til you're blue in the face to support or refute OAK's. All I know, is my St. Croix Prescott burns MUCH better than it did before I installed one after joining this forum. I'll stick with my OAK and they can continue to study whether or not you should or shouldn't

It is sometimes assumed that taking air from outside through a duct saves energy because the stove doesn't use up indoor air and cause outdoor air to be drawn in through leaks to replace it. But the assumed heating deficit is so small as to be insignificant. The average air consumption of a modern wood heater is in the range of 10 - 25 cfm, which is very small compared to the natural leakage rate of houses. Building scientists say that the air in a house must be exchanged at least every three hours, or one-third of an airchange per hour, to control moisture from cooking and washing and to manage odors. One third of an air change in a 1500 square foot house is 4000 cubic feet, or 66 cfm. Note that this is the absolute minimum air change for healthy living and that most houses older than 20 years have natural leakage rates far higher than this in winter. So the air consumption of a wood stove is a tiny part of a much larger exchange of air between the house and outdoors.

Interesting paragraph since most pellet stoves are in the order of around 85 cfm much more then a wood stove.

Nowhere in that article are pellet stoves mentioned, or at least I didn't see one while reading quickly. All I saw were natural draft systems. To me, this article is not applicable, whatsoever, to pellet stoves. But like I said, I speed read it.

P38X2 said:

Nowhere in that article are pellet stoves mentioned, or at least I didn't see one while reading quickly. All I saw were natural draft systems. To me, this article is not applicable, whatsoever, to pellet stoves. But like I said, I speed read it.

Click to expand...

Just did a quick search of the page and the word pellet is not there.

All that air exchange is fine and dandy ( ya I read it some time ago) Too wet Inside ? heck my place is registering 22 %. If i'm sucking more cold in due to the stove that means I have to run it or the furnace harder to over come that, kinda like perpetual motion ain't gonna happen So to me those taking heads missed a few pertinent details. Takes a lot less btu's to raise the temp say from 50 to 70 than from -10 to 70. using an OAK or like my gas unit which also pulls combustion air from out side just makes more sense to me. Now in some of these plastic wrapped sealed boxes we call homes , ya , there have been problems developing. There are units that pre warm the incoming make up air so as not destroy your wallet also. simple ones are easy to make your self. Change the air every 3 hours none of us could afford the heating bills for that. Be like a small tornado runing through. Just my highly inflated $.02 worth.

This has already been discussed. The article while making valid points does not address pellet stoves specifically. Null and void.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/is-oak-a-myth-article-discuss.113259/

What I found interesting in this article is that the author does not put his name to it nor does he cite sources of "studies." Lacks credibility if you're mentioning studies have found ... and not allow the reader to find the full version of the study to confirm conclusions drawn. Fluff not a technical article...

I am so glad I installed the OAK

The article mentioned is only addressing natural draft burners.
The final conclusion the author (whoever they may be) makes is:
In general, therefore, wood stoves and fireplaces that are vented by natural chimney draft should draw the air for combustion from the room in which they are located.

Our powered exhaust pellet burners uses a tad bit more air than a wood stove would

for the record, I know who wrote this. the fellow is a very learned member of the hearth community and has contributed quite a lot in his efforts to wood-burning. don't sell him short. the guy is pretty dang smart.

note however most of what he is referring to in his articles concerns fireplaces, and maybe woodstoves, which operate under different parameters than pellet stoves do. its not "apples to apples"

best advice I can offer is to read your manual, comply with the Manufacturers instructions and if anything is unclear in your particular case , contact the maker or a wett, cia or nfi certified professional.

Hi Guys,
Not a pellet stover and I think some posters are correct this article appears to be geared towards open fireplaces and wood burners. Not even sure how the OAK systems on a pellet stove work but it sounds like they are working for that application.

I did have an open fireplace (pre-insert) that had exactly what the article mentioned, a small vent to the firebox that was supposed to supply combustion air. It was a big fat zero. Did not supply air, had smoke spillage and leaked air when not in use so I bricked it over when I put the insert in.

Might be a good link to post in the fireplace/stove forum. We can always use something new to argue about besides covering or not covering our wood.

jatoxico said:

Hi Guys,
Not a pellet stover and I think some posters are correct this article appears to be geared towards open fireplaces and wood burners. Not even sure how the OAK systems on a pellet stove work but it sounds like they are working for that application.

I did have an open fireplace (pre-insert) that had exactly what the article mentioned, a small vent to the firebox that was supposed to supply combustion air. It was a big fat zero. Did not supply air, had smoke spillage and leaked air when not in use so I bricked it over when I put the insert in.

Might be a good link to post in the fireplace/stove forum. We can always use something new to argue about besides covering or not covering our wood.

Click to expand...

agreed, its a very insightful article when looked at in the context of what it pertains to. as I said above, I know of the guy and he's no dummy.

I've read a lot of those excellent articles in the past, and they are about fireplaces and wood burning, not pellets.

stoveguy2esw said:

agreed, its a very insightful article when looked at in the context of what it pertains to. as I said above, I know of the guy and he's no dummy.

Click to expand...

He put his initials JG. He's legit.

2003 study excerpts... http://www.gulland.ca/products/NegativePressureTestProtocolRPT.htm CMHC one of the testing partners...
Investigation of Negative Pressure Test Protocols for Wood- and Pellet-Burning Appliances

No significant differences were noted in the spillage susceptibility of the pellet stoves, despite differences in combustion system design. One of the pellet stoves, selected for its especially tight construction, was tested with its combustion air taken from outside the test enclosure. The timing and duration of spillage under power failure conditions was similar to the other tests, but the volume of spillage was lower, peaking at 28 ppm. This series of tests suggest that pellet stoves should be placed in a different category of spillage susceptibility than wood stoves since both pellet stoves were capable of operating normally in an environment depressurized by 15 Pa. Note that the power failure tests of pellet stoves is inherently unrealistic because the household fans that would produce such a high level of depressurization would also not function during a power failure.

Hard to find research on pellet stoves and/or OAKs

Here's a good one for you ... JG is the Gulland who conducted the negative pressure test protocol for CMHC and who would be the staff John Gulland of woodheat.org. His consulting website is interesting as he has set up solar, windmill and woodheat for his home & office.

PS - he really should put his name to his articles....

Lake Girl said:

Here's a good one for you ... JG is the Gulland who conducted the negative pressure test protocol for CMHC and who would be the staff John Gulland of woodheat.org. His consulting website is interesting as he has set up solar, windmill and woodheat for his home & office.

PS - he really should put his name to his articles....

Click to expand...

yeah, JG is John Gulland. FWIW we have disagreed on a couple things in the past but I still regard him as one of the smartest guys in the field.

He does concede that pellet stoves should be viewed in a different category (from firepaces and wood stoves)...
guess you've made some points

"http://woodheat.org/the-outdoor-air-myth-exposed.html"

Complete idiots.

sometimes, just sometimes it really does pay to read through the thread.
or the article. or both.

As noted earlier, article not applicable to pellet stoves. Wood stoves cause 15-25 CFM of accelerated air exchange, pellet stoves about 85 CFM. One likely keeps a house under the optimal (not minimum) air exchange rate of about 0.35 per hour for a family of four in a typical home. The other causes one to exceed it, Just math and physics (and common sense).