so what's wrong with a "direct connect"??

well it the installation was done before 2003 then if done correctly it was code compliant at that time Code language changef in 2003 that changed the cross-sectional area of exposed chimneys to only 2 time the flue collar Example 6" flue collar 2X= 56" Common 8/12 masonry chimney 78" 12/12 about 100" as you see the are for properly drafting the stove is to large to properly heat up the masonry outside location flue Two problem happen when the warmer exhaust bumps into the colder masonry section of the flue it condenses and forms cresote then your draft is met with resistance and slows down reducing stove preformance the longer it remains in the chimney the more time it cools and creates cresote.

in an effort to create more effecient stoves draft was reduced leaving smoke in the fire box longer Exiting gases pass threw secondary chambers and do not exit nearly as quick as pre EPA stoves trying to force exhaust threw a larger cool area further reduces stove preformance then the Cresote build up issues Fire depts got tired making calls for chimney fires with direct connection issues along with stove manufactures support to change the code to reflect the more stringent draft requirements

The basics are - if it works well and you don't have problems, then it is probably fine and there is nothing wrong with it! The code change was made to avoid potential problems in what is probably a small percentage of installations - those in very cold climates, with exterior chimneys and certain stoves that are difficult in drafting.

The code change may have been "wrong" or "misinformed". It may have been pushed by liner manufacturers and chimney sweeps...and by stove companies that did not want to have to engineer their stoves to perform with marginal chimney.

The point is that neither physics nor stove design changed very much in the last decade or more, yet the codes do change.....

But back to the real world, if an installation works well, that means a lot.

Webmaster said:

The basics are - if it works well and you don't have problems, then it is probably fine and there is nothing wrong with it! The code change was made to avoid potential problems in what is probably a small percentage of installations - those in very cold climates, with exterior chimneys and certain stoves that are difficult in drafting.

The code change may have been "wrong" or "misinformed". It may have been pushed by liner manufacturers and chimney sweeps...and by stove companies that did not want to have to engineer their stoves to perform with marginal chimney. What are you talking about? Care to provide supporting date to back up this ridiculeous statement? Is this another one of you made up wide stroke baseless statements you make? I gave the reason for the code change.. Directly from the Comentary of the NFPA. Do you have some other sourse I should be reviewing? You know when you make such statements that are baseless.. it is hard to give credence to the rest of what you have said.

The point is that neither physics nor stove design changed very much in the last decade or more, yet the codes do change.....
How many stove tested to .75 gph a decade ago? I'll save you the look up time none. How many had fire dome secondary combustion a decade ago? Again none

But back to the real world, if an installation works well, that means a lot.

Click to expand...

How would you know it works well without the proper draft requirements?



[

If Stevebass' install occurred before 2003 he's good to go (you posted it Elk). Let's let him come back and confirm when the install was. Web's comment, I bet, was based on a pre-2k3 install.

Enough chest thumping.

ITs not chest thumping but getting such info correct based on facts. I gave the facts not some wild baseless speculation

The fact should speak for themselves as you pointed out Facts don't help drafting or cresote build up. It may be code compliant if installed prior to 2003

again being compliant might not equate to optium preformance, a liner could deliver. I though I spelled it out quite fairly. without any chest thumping

I take acception to someone interpeting my expertise with out supporting data. almost like making a joke of my hard work an effort to scoff it off
based on personal speculation without one shread of facts

Yes, but the OP said he gets a good draft (maybe not optimal but it does not sound like he is having issues), sot what appears to be the biggest benefit of a liner for the OP (the main question here) is it is easier to clean.

By the way, don't take acception because that is allowing. Take exception ;-)

Stevebass4 said:

i know elk is all about code just wondering if i'd gain anything by a full liner

also it's too small to burn 24/7 i will mostly use this stove say 3-5 hours a night and then on weekends

Click to expand...

Again, if it works fine and there are no problems, then you don't stand to gain much in the way of operation by lining it. Certainly a liner gives one more margin of safety in just about any installation, but the usual benefits to the operator are better draft and easier cleaning. If neither of these change your user experience, you have to weigh the cost against the benefits.

Webmaster said:

Stevebass4 said:

i know elk is all about code just wondering if i'd gain anything by a full liner

also it's too small to burn 24/7 i will mostly use this stove say 3-5 hours a night and then on weekends

Click to expand...

Again, if it works fine and there are no problems, then you don't stand to gain much in the way of operation by lining it. Certainly a liner gives one more margin of safety in just about any installation, but the usual benefits to the operator are better draft and easier cleaning. If neither of these change your user experience, you have to weigh the cost against the benefits.

Click to expand...

Well...I've been following this thread and would like to ask a few questions. First, Steve??? What State/Locale do you live in and what is their permitting process (if any) for your installation??? If there is a permitting process...did you apply for a permit??? Was your particular installation inspected??? Whether or not it needed to be inspected You stated it was installed in 2005,correct? Elk outlined NFPA211 required a continous liner since 2003 so to answer your question (from a 3rd party point of view) it would not be in compliance... So if it works fine???

But having said that...now come the "Disclaimers"...lol

As you said Steve..."Elk is all about code" but he sort of has to be don't you think? I don't think he would say "Ohh yeah that is fine" here on the forum... And then go out and do an inspection and fail somebody with the same setup. As a municipal inspector what do you think would happen to him if someone failed an inspection and then surfed the forum???

Web...I'll go easy here (given the past few days of heated debate) but your comments above are somewhat alarming given the fact you are the administrator/owner of the site and should be one to err on the side of caution...Personally (given the potential liability) of "condoning" an install that is at the very least a 'potential liability' given the fact there is a conflict with NFPA211 I would have at least said at the end of your post "The standard disclaimers apply". Perhaps you missed the conflict of dates from thread to thread???

Having said all that Steve...Regardless of what anyone here on the forum thinks I would ask a represenative of your Homeowners' insurance policy "for an interpretation". Because whether or not it works fine, in the unfortunate event (G^D forbid) you have a fire..even though it might have absolutely nothing to do with the way your stove is setup...It might be grounds for an insurance company to deny your claim.... But then again...When have you known an insurance company to deny someone's claim???

You decide what is right and wrong Steve. If you live in a state like Vermont (very little to no regulations etc...and IMHO the way it should be) or a state like "The People's (Socialist) Republic of Massachusetts" where you can't take a dump without a permit/and or tax stamp...

Which kind of state would you rather live in???

Word to the wise folks... On the surface...Whether or not Steve's particualr install works, is just fine or whatever is fair game... but in the end If people don't "voluntarily err towrds good practice" it gets forced upon people in the form of "rules,regs,codes and permitting processes"

Keep that in mind...

What's the size of the chimney?

Well, being the install was last winter and not pre-2003, the installation was not done to code. So, the advantage of a full liner is it corrects this.

Stevebass4 said:

i have no problems with Elk's posts and understand his points 100% and i live about 5 miles from Elk so if anyone knows the code in my area it's him.

my question was with regards to the direct connect - my stove is qf 2100 and it was installed last nov (11/06) the manual says a direct connect is fine (older insert but was never used by the orig owner)

The folks who installed my insert said i should get a permit however i never did and they said i shouldn't have any problems.. and they hooked it up according to the manual ie a direct connect .

with regards to my homeowners - all i had to do is send in a form of the type of stove and who installed it.. nothing more / nothing less

Click to expand...

Well then what I would say to you...is a phrase I've heard before "Keep your trap shut kid"..lol

If it was installed by someone else and the insurance company is happy...then you are covered. Any potential "Jackpot" would probably fall upon the installer. If the town you live in doesn't require a permit (or does and your installer didn't pull one) I would think you are "covered" unless there is a stipulation to the effect "The homeowner shall apply and be responsible for the application for permit"... I dunno... that one could be answered better by Elk.

Amazing.....next thing you know we'll be telling people the meaning of life...(Oh, I already did that in the blog).....

Let me see if I can really clarify this post:

1. Cigarette smoking causes cancer
2. Having sex with guys in the mens room does not make you gay nor anti-family values.
3. I am not a code official, nor do I want to be (it takes all types), but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night
4. The Internet is a big place
5. Key is hereby disallowed from working for Elk or taking any money from him.
6. You need a shave
7. Your breath may smell
8. Not flossing your teeth can cause heart disease - what's wrong? Don't you care about your life or your family?
9. Elk is banned until after the wedding (or did it already happen)?

With a little more seriousness, folks here (including myself) are sometimes - no, maybe often - speaking out their arse!

Based on the post, we don't know whether the chimney was inside or outside, or what size the fireplace flue is/was.
If I'm not wrong, NFPA still allows certain direct connects.

Manufacturers manuals as well as test labs and standards still allow direct connects.

The code is not a "consumer products safety commission" type of deal - in other words, when the code gets updated, it does not mean that every installation in the world done under the former code is "illegal" all of a sudden. It usually takes many years before everyone from local code officials to labs and manufacturers update their materials.....or, in many cases, even their knowledge.

I'll have to reread the original post, but I thought the man said that the installation works fine and asked what is better about a liner. I think we told him that. I didn't think he requested as to who was the boss here or who the alpha male is.....

Now back to bible study so I can find something wrong with EVERYTHING.

Web......in reference to the Senator in #2.............he wasn't trying to pick up the officer in the next stall, he just "has a wide stance while evacuating".........

Steve said he read the manual and installed it according to the manual This being true how did you miss on the first page permitting and code compliance was mandatory?
Also listed in the manual a the stove was tested to NFPA 211 compliancce. What this statement does is allow the stove to be inspected to current NFPA regulations it call in the full body of codes to be applied.. Let me qualify the intent of this post. IT is not a bashing to anyone indivual but general statements concerning these type installations Steve and I have conversed numereous times in the past about other topics He also expressed willingness to help in donor installations.. In no way am I singaling him out ,but the actual situation ,so that othere may learn from what is said.

He claims the stove is working fine. The issue here is the degree of what fine means.. He says he gets 3 to 5 hours of decent burn times. One will never know if fine is a compromise to better performance? What if a liner would give him more draft control and add another productive hour to burn time? Nobody here can say for sure it will happen. We know it is an exterior chimney location. We know it has to overcome a larger area to draft in a cold enviorment .We know the situation is a compromise. WE also know there is room for improvement and less compromise.

The question becomes is it worth the expense will the enhanced preformance be cost effective? A full liner will also add another layer /margine of safety. My oppinion it will aid in better preformance. Cost effective I don't know.. I do know if it is not vented in an 8/12 flue but a 12/12 the preformance gains will be quite evident Fine just became very poor.
We also know it not a big insert producing huge BTUS. It does not have the power or heat to bludgeon the draft threw that chimney,, so every improvement will be noticable

Did you know I have agreements with most surrounding towns to be a backup or aterrnate inspector there as well, Including his town?

If you need help with the liner you are close enought I can help you, but again I can not work on an unpermitted installation particularly in the next town

11 Bravo said:

Web......in reference to the Senator in #2.............he wasn't trying to pick up the officer in the next stall, he just "has a wide stance while evacuating".........

Click to expand...

Ah, but the "code official" in this case - the policeman - stated that the toilet never flushed! That, my man, is an illegal move in my book!

Webmaster said:

Amazing.....next thing you know we'll be telling people the meaning of life...(Oh, I already did that in the blog).....

Let me see if I can really clarify this post:

1. Cigarette smoking causes cancer
2. Having sex with guys in the mens room does not make you gay nor anti-family values.
3. I am not a code official, nor do I want to be (it takes all types), but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night
4. The Internet is a big place
5. Key is hereby disallowed from working for Elk or taking any money from him.
6. You need a shave
7. Your breath may smell
8. Not flossing your teeth can cause heart disease - what's wrong? Don't you care about your life or your family?
9. Elk is banned until after the wedding (or did it already happen)?

Click to expand...

Web??? After reading the above...

I just have to ask:

Just out of curiousity...are you a "recreational crack user" by any chance??? lol

"on a more serious note" I'm going to refrain from commenting further because it is apparent that it will offer nothing worthwhile to the discussion....

"I'll be taking my dumptruck to play elsewhere..its a big sand lot"...lol