Smoke Dragon

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
jabush said:
I love my old stove as well. And although it smokes some, I don't consider it a "smoke dragon" as I burn it pretty clean.
Dry wood and user operation are key to cleaner burning in the "Classics".

I also noticed that there are more members here this year burning older units. I think these folks can benefit greatly from those who have flattened the learning curve on running a pre EPA stove.

So if you're burning a "Classic" then post up and ask questions, there are more members here burning them than one would think.

Looks like were pulling a few classic burners out of the WOODwork :lol:




notbobvilla said:
I just wanted to say that I have lurked here for a long time and enjoy all the great info here. I read all the horror stories about new stoves that don't heat or are problamatic and it makes me appreciate my " smoke dragon". Every summer I get the urge to replace the stove with with a "purty stove with a viewing hole" and every winter I am so glad I didn't. It works great! In the 20's outside and I added too much wood and I have to open a window because it's almost 90 in here! I have an old, poorly insulated drafty 1700 square house and all I use is the ole "smoke dragon". I know there must be others like me around here, so my question is can we please come up with a better name than "smoke dragon"? Something cool and catchy? Something we can use as a "signature" as i'm getting tired of "jotul" and "PE" signatures everywhere.

No offense meant to anybody in their 65 degree house "watching" not "feeling" the heat! :lol:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi, I've only had my new stove for a few months and I really love it. I think it puts out more heat with less wood than the old stove. After burning in the old stove for 26 years, it was a hard decision to change because I didn't dislike the old "smoke dragon". Because I can no longer walk unassisted and my wife has to get the wood to the house, I can tend the stove once the wood is in the house, the thought of burning less wood was very appealing. So far this year I have burned about a third less than last and last year wasn't as cold as this year so it is working out well for me. And, I really enjoy watching the fire.

Jim
 
Jim Walsh said:
BrotherBart said:
What do you want us to tell you? I burned in a 1985 Sierra "insert" for 21 years. Went to improve it and added a smoothwall chimney liner. Improved the draft so much that the crack in the firebox I hadn't noticed before let it get up to 1,200 degrees one night. Plugged the crack and it did it again the next night. The stove was just never designed for something that didn't exist in 1985.

It went out in the back yard as a meat smoker and I replaced it with a stove that heats at least a third better and I am only half-way where I used to be this time of year through my wood pile.

Modify away at your stove. After you buy a few new fire extinguishers.

And yes, I miss that old stove. We had a lot of miles on us together.
Click to expand...

Brother Bart,

I respect you dearly but wouldn't most people reduce their wood consumption by going from an insert to a stove?

I think in your case you had to ditch the old and look at new. I think most of us would make that move if we were jeopardising our family and home.

In retrospect, let's say your insert was still billowing and you weren't forced to do anything.... were you going to replace it before it let out that mighty CRACK or were you forced into it because of metal fatigue and could no longer run the beast?
Click to expand...

Jim.
How does a stove consume less wood than an insert? For example, a Summit insert, same fire box, same set up as a Summit freestander, less the legs, ash pan & the stove less the outer casing. Why would the stove consume less than the insert. The same wood in each will burn the same amount, consuming the same amount of wood, would it not?
 
Hogwildz said:
Jim Walsh said:
BrotherBart said:
What do you want us to tell you? I burned in a 1985 Sierra "insert" for 21 years. Went to improve it and added a smoothwall chimney liner. Improved the draft so much that the crack in the firebox I hadn't noticed before let it get up to 1,200 degrees one night. Plugged the crack and it did it again the next night. The stove was just never designed for something that didn't exist in 1985.

It went out in the back yard as a meat smoker and I replaced it with a stove that heats at least a third better and I am only half-way where I used to be this time of year through my wood pile.

Modify away at your stove. After you buy a few new fire extinguishers.

And yes, I miss that old stove. We had a lot of miles on us together.
Click to expand...

Brother Bart,

I respect you dearly but wouldn't most people reduce their wood consumption by going from an insert to a stove?

I think in your case you had to ditch the old and look at new. I think most of us would make that move if we were jeopardising our family and home.

In retrospect, let's say your insert was still billowing and you weren't forced to do anything.... were you going to replace it before it let out that mighty CRACK or were you forced into it because of metal fatigue and could no longer run the beast?
Click to expand...

Jim.
How does a stove consume less wood than an insert? For example, a Summit insert, same fire box, same set up as a Summit freestander, less the legs, ash pan & the stove less the outer casing. Why would the stove consume less than the insert. The same wood in each will burn the same amount, consuming the same amount of wood, would it not?
Click to expand...

Well, technically no, because a freestander is a little more efficient due to the exposed stove pipe and it not being enclosed inside a fireplace. That's what Craig says anyways.
 
Todd said:
Hogwildz said:
Jim Walsh said:
BrotherBart said:
What do you want us to tell you? I burned in a 1985 Sierra "insert" for 21 years. Went to improve it and added a smoothwall chimney liner. Improved the draft so much that the crack in the firebox I hadn't noticed before let it get up to 1,200 degrees one night. Plugged the crack and it did it again the next night. The stove was just never designed for something that didn't exist in 1985.

It went out in the back yard as a meat smoker and I replaced it with a stove that heats at least a third better and I am only half-way where I used to be this time of year through my wood pile.

Modify away at your stove. After you buy a few new fire extinguishers.

And yes, I miss that old stove. We had a lot of miles on us together.
Click to expand...

Brother Bart,

I respect you dearly but wouldn't most people reduce their wood consumption by going from an insert to a stove?

I think in your case you had to ditch the old and look at new. I think most of us would make that move if we were jeopardising our family and home.

In retrospect, let's say your insert was still billowing and you weren't forced to do anything.... were you going to replace it before it let out that mighty CRACK or were you forced into it because of metal fatigue and could no longer run the beast?
Click to expand...

Jim.
How does a stove consume less wood than an insert? For example, a Summit insert, same fire box, same set up as a Summit freestander, less the legs, ash pan & the stove less the outer casing. Why would the stove consume less than the insert. The same wood in each will burn the same amount, consuming the same amount of wood, would it not?
Click to expand...

Well, technically no, because a freestander is a little more efficient due to the exposed stove pipe and it not being enclosed inside a fireplace. That's what Craig says anyways.
Click to expand...

Huh? LOL So now an exposed single wall stove pipe is more efficient than a double wall insulated? Something ain't adding up here. LOL
 
Hogz is trying to say, correctly so, IMHO, the freestander will give more radiant heat than the insert, thus allowing the operator to use less fuel.
 
Hogwildz said:
[Jim.
How does a stove consume less wood than an insert? For example, a Summit insert, same fire box, same set up as a Summit freestander, less the legs, ash pan & the stove less the outer casing. Why would the stove consume less than the insert. The same wood in each will burn the same amount, consuming the same amount of wood, would it not?
Click to expand...

I think it has already been stated, but exposing a cube with a lot more easily circulated air will make a better heat exchanger and you are not heating up the back of a masonry firebox where quite a bit of the heat is lost.

Another feature of a free standing is the fact that you can push air across the top of the stove to move air towards an adjoining room, much less effective with an insert.

The last item is stove pipe. Mine is 8" exhaust, so for every foot of run you are exposing another 150sq/in of hot pipe, that's pretty significant.

So we may be burning the same amount of wood, but the free standing should get more BTUs from it.
 
Still using my smoke dragon, 28 years young
 

Attachments

  • gold marc 1.jpg
    gold marc 1.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 539
Jim Walsh said:
elmoleaf said:
I'm sure some might get over nostalgia pretty quick if they upgraded to a newer stove model. Sometimes you need to spend money to save money.
Click to expand...

OK Elmo..
So tell us all about your nostalgia about burning a stove. What SMOKE DRAGON did you burn prior to your rebuilt VC Cat?
I would love to hear the story?
Click to expand...

Jim,
There is no "story", just my opinion.

I don't think that any stove I used to burn (all owned by my folks)--A VC Defiant of the same vintage you're burning, a VC Vigilant of similar age, and a pre-cat VC Intrepid--would qualify as a "smoke dragons", as they were all designed to be air-tight efficient stoves. When used correctly, they are excellent stoves compared to the many leaky less efficient stoves of that time period.

In my own home, I had a fireplace before installing my current stove. That truly was an inefficient smoke dragon. I don't miss that at all. I still get to see the flames with my stove's glass doors, but now get a heck of a lot more heat with less wood than the fireplace used. Old technology--be it woodstoves, crosscut saws, kitchen stoves, woodworking tools, televisions, adding machines, washing machines, record players, cars etc. etc.--may be nice to look at and collect, but aren't always the easiest and most efficient way to get a job done today.
 
author="elmoleaf" date="1199655448Jim,

I don't think that any stove I used to burn (all owned by my folks)--A VC Defiant of the same vintage you're burning, a VC Vigilant of similar age, and a pre-cat VC Intrepid--would qualify as a "smoke dragons", as they were all designed to be air-tight efficient stoves.
Click to expand...

Actually they weren't designed as air-tight, they were designed as top-down draft for better efficiency. Every stove needs air as we know, but how it is baffled through the firebox was the real difference.
 
Actually they weren't designed as air-tight, they were designed as top-down draft for better efficiency. Every stove needs air as we know, but how it is baffled through the firebox was the real difference.[/quote]

This is what I was trying to address in another thread entitled Thinking about modifying my insert... I wanted to know, basically, if top-down draft was more efficient than the design my Buckstove has now- draft controls at the bottom of the doors...
 
Jim Walsh said:
author="elmoleaf" date="1199655448Jim,

I don't think that any stove I used to burn (all owned by my folks)--A VC Defiant of the same vintage you're burning, a VC Vigilant of similar age, and a pre-cat VC Intrepid--would qualify as a "smoke dragons", as they were all designed to be air-tight efficient stoves.
Click to expand...

Actually they weren't designed as air-tight, they were designed as top-down draft for better efficiency. Every stove needs air as we know, but how it is baffled through the firebox was the real difference.
Click to expand...

Jim,
As you know, the VC manual for these period stoves (http://www.vermontcastings.com/catalog/elements/files/Defiant_Vig_Res_Intre_Pre88-5756.pdf) gives an excellent description of the design of these stoves and what makes them different from "smoke dragons".
As VC states in the manual (p.2), "our stoves are combustion controlled (sometimes called "air-tight")...." So yes, to be more exact, they're not "air-tight" but "combustion controlled".

For those not familiar, two features differentiate these stoves from "smoke dragons":
1. Combustion control using a thermostatic primary air control and a secondary air inlet (for secondary combustion of smoke). This of course contrasts markedly with a "smoke dragon" that can let uncontrolled air into the combustion chamber.
2. Combustion control using exhaust path damper to redirect smoke into a secondary combustion chamber/path, which "smoke dragons" usually lack. It's not really a "top-down draft". When the damper is closed, exhaust is redirected into a horizontal path across & up the back of the stove (except for the Intrepid). VC terms it "horizontal combustion" vs. the "updraft combustion" of a typical stove/fireplace. The idea of course was that by using a long horizontal flame/exhaust path, one might extract more heat, and by introducing secondary combustion air, also try to burn more of the smoke (wood).
 
You know, I grew up with basic Yankee values, use it up, wear it out, make it do. I think that's often true of the old stoves too. Many of them were made well enough that used properly, they last for a long time. I switched from my old Combifire last year, not becasue of dissatisfaction with the stove, but because I came across a deal so good on the stove of my dreams that I couldn't pass it up. With the purchase price of my Keystone used, new pipe inside, and the money I got selling my Combifire, I upgraded to a $2400 stove for $375. I loved my old stove and it's got many good years still in it. The guy who bought it understood it and appreciated it and was going to use it in a situation it was well suited for. I would never judge someone who is still using a fine old stove well as inferior, etc. It's my experience that when the time comes for whatever reason to move to a new stove, that properly sized and installed, you'll find an improved burning situation in terms of efficiency, environmental cleanliness, and generally in the aesthetics of clear glass viewing. I would never go back from the Keystone I have now to a pre-EPA stove. But why just throw out an older stove that works great for you?
 
I have an old smoke dragon, a 1/4" plate steel franklin style from atlanta stove works. When I first bought the house, I got some sealant to seal up the gaps in the top funnel shaped pipe going to the regular 8" pipe. Since then no noticable smoke in the house. I have considered upgrading, but I actually like this sucker. I think after reading this site that I have a lot to learn in technique alone that will make it a lot more efficient. I am ashamed to admit that until this year I never messed with the damper over the stove in the exit pipe, I only used the little slots in the front of the doors for adjustments. Now these doors are not even approaching airtight so I doubt I was doing a whole lot :)

Any franklin owners out there have any tips on running this sucker? From recent messing around it seems like it's happy if I take my splits and make em even smaller, about 2-3" and then damper down about 75%. Throws a ton of heat this way and the wood lasts longer, although still not long enough :). I worry that I'm doing something wrong here? It's warm this week, maybe I'll take a peek at the chimney. Right now I burn about a cord a month heating 2000 sq ft, although this is not my only heating, I'd say the stove does about 60-75% of the work.

And as an aside, I can say that the house having a woodstove and not a fireplace was one of my big reasons for picking this one :). My parents have a similar stove, and there was nothing like coming in from the cold as a kid and standing in front of that beast.
 
The "CLASSIC STOVE" aka "SMOKE DRAGON" ...THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD....
Let's think about it for a minute; everyone here loves wood burning: take it away from us and we would start withdrawl symptoms within a few days....

If there were a "woodstove show" in your area, like car shows, and there were the new EPA secondary burners, CAT stoves as well as the old stoves from the 1800's to the 1980's: how many of you would go to the show and spend day looking at all the great designs, present and past: with a little future thrown in there?

I love the old designs; I have a couple of old round OAKs, a porcelain kitchen stove, a few Potbellies and two train station MONSTERS. I don't have them all hooked up and burning; my wife thinks I'm crazy because I can't part with them. But, I bet most of you understand.

These stoves will all burn pretty clean if you use them correctly. I think in the old days people were concerned with heat and they used the wood it took to get it. They burned pretty hot and then let it burn down when they didn't need the heat.

Then we moved into the modern era where people used the stoves to compete with GAS/OIL. So, now the thing was to see how little wood you could burn and still get heat. As Jim points out, operating these stoves clapmed way down produces the problem.

You can't argue with the efficiency of the modern wood stove. The regulations have caused the engineers to come up with some pretty neat ways of burning everything and controlling emissions. If you wanted to you could just let any of these stoves burn wide open and they would be burning as "Classics".

I love them all! If you have the wood to spare and love your Classic, use it. If you love your Modern use it. BURNING WOOD is the point. And, I hope every one in this old USA doesn't get it because if they do; some do-gooder is likely to notice and try to further regulate us, find creative ways to tax us more and possibly ban us out of existence.

One point made by an earlier post is that this community is a big help to all burners (and on the other forums other forms of energy as well). A "Classic" burner can learn a lot from those who have mastered how to use a stove that has no secondary burn or EPA certification. They can be burned relatively clean and produce wonderful heat: you just can't clamp them down and expect them to provide either very well.

Thanks to everyone here for all you contribute. Reading your views the past months made my upgrade decision both easier and safer.

SW
 
Great post and a perfect replacement for "Smoke Dragon". I finally have a signature! I always knew the great minds here would figure it out.
 
notbobvilla said:
Great post and a perfect replacement for "Smoke Dragon". I finally have a signature! I always knew the great minds here would figure it out.
Click to expand...
Okay, not bobvilla, you started it- I've updated my signature to "Classic" Regular Buck 27000. Thanks!
 
BB.... you could have linked to that 41 posts ago.....than I would have been sporting a signature for the weekend!!! :blank:
 
I'm with you. I like the "Classic" term. I never cared for the Smoke Dragon term--sounds sinister, negative I guess. The term "pre EPA" isn't much fun to say or type either.
 
"Classic" is a great term. Web-Widow was lamenting that Craig wouldn't let her collect old stoves. Swestall, you hit the nail on the head. Many of us would be checking out the "Old Stove" shows. Look at them all, especially the vintage cook stoves which were heat sources, hot water sources, the kitchen stove, and beautiful all in one. The range is staggering. I always love the posts where someone says "I have this old"..whatever, with a pic and Craig or someone else comes back with "Oh Yeah, that's a such and such, they made 17 of them in the 70's and then" So all you old "smoke dragon" owners, stand tall and proud with you "Classic Stove"!! burned well.
 
Talking about the older stoves, and running them for that matter, is fun but there are a few facts to consider too. We are having a fairly average winter here so far and I am now looking at one of the rows of oak being used up just before or right at the end of January.

It is the row that was allocated for November just as it always has been before. And my wife has said more than once that this house has never been as warm as it has been since I put Old Brownie out to pasture. In fact the hardest part has been keeping the place from being too hot upstairs on nights in the teens and twenties. We don't have brutal winters here but the only thing that has changed is the stove.

That and the fact that cleaning the chimney on Christmas Eve took twenty minutes. Hauling that old big mutha out of the fire place and cleaning the chimney was an all day job. Not to mention $30 a year in creosote preventing concoctions that, when they worked, just made for a Shop-Vac full of black flakes instead of a scoop full of soot.

Enjoy them old pups guys. I ain't ever having that kind of fun or those damned chimney fires again. 30 years was enough for me.
 
I will always remember the 1980s Sierra wood stove as a classic . The house was hot. I had no problem with smoke, stack was as clean as the epa one I am running now when I sweep. I would just load it up put a coal in fount of a spinner air control and let it rip. When the box was cold, repeat, 24/7, for years.

That out house smoke dragon down the road makes me want to call the fire department. My first thought is always some ones house is on fire. Until I saw one of these I had no idea what smoke dragons were.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dunmyermowingllc
Epa to smoke dragon conversion
Replies
67
Views
4K
US Stove (Ashley, Vogelzang, US Stove)
EbS-P
EbS-P
A
Smoke on reload on Ambiance Elegance
Replies
4
Views
857
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
EatenByLimestone
EatenByLimestone
S
Smoke in home
Replies
13
Views
1K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
J
Help with chimney smoke!
Replies
16
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
stoveliker
stoveliker
J
Duo Therm Imperial Oil Burning Stove ... lots of carbon, not hot, black smoke ...
Replies
0
Views
407
The Boiler Room - Wood Boilers and Furnaces
JnnyDirt
J
Top Bottom
Back