Interesting report of creosote fires in chimneys

  • 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.
tfdchief

tfdchief

Minister of Fire
Nov 24, 2009
3,336
Tuscola, IL
myplace.frontier.com
I found this document http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire83/PDF/f83003.pdf to be some really interesting reading. An in depth study and report of flue fires, over fires, and there affect on chimneys and nearby combustibles. The study was done in 1983, but I have not seen anything like it more recent. Tests were conducted using all types of chimneys. I know, you have to be addicted but I have already been diagnosed, so here it is. Oh, by the way....I found especially interesting the finding at the bottom of page 9 regarding creosote buildup relationship between dry wood and wet wood.....you are not going to like it! (and I have a real hard time believing it, although the study seems to be quite thorough and legitimate)
NO I AM NOT TELLING, you have to read it yourself ;-P
 
I have to admit, I went straight to page 9 to see what you were referring to. Interesting information which I will not ruin for anyone else that may read this, but all I can say is it goes against everything I have ever been told. It was also interesting to read about the different species and creosote buildup. Thanks for ruining my reality....
 
I have a theory as to the reasons for their observations (notice I said observations, not conclusions) on page 9. But I'll hold off as not to ruin it for others.

I will make 2 comments though:

1: Correlation does not mean causation.

2. I am not changing my habits and neither should anyone else by pulling a few lines out of a study and taking them out of context. One needs to remember what they were actually trying to accomplish here.

GREAT read! Thank you for sharing.

pen
 
pen said:
I would like to see these tests conducted again using an EPA stove. I have a theory as to the reasons for their conclusions on page 9. But I'll hold off as not to ruin it for others.

I will make 2 comments though:

1: Correlation does not mean causation.

2. I am not changing my habits.

pen
Click to expand...

I would challenge these people to come to work with me for awhile.
 
Now you did it! I have a feeling this could turn into one of those 12 page threads. And by the way, I dont buy it!
 
A study that only Battenkiller could love. :lol:
 
That must be a typo in the last paragraph. A few pargraphs up the page addresses a topic talked about on the this forum a couple of weeks ago. That part I agree with.
 
wkpoor said:
That must be a typo in the last paragraph. A few pargraphs up the page addresses a topic talked about on the this forum a couple of weeks ago. That part I agree with.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the suggestion that small build ups of creosote can possibly be burned out without in detrimental effects?
 
jotulguy said:
Now you did it! I have a feeling this could turn into one of those 12 page threads. And by the way, I dont buy it!
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are right, but you have to admit, it is an interesting study. It does support a lot many of us already know and for me at least, it shed some light in areas I was a little less sure of. By the way, I agree with all of you that page nine is very interesting at the least. Not likely that it is a typo because in the next sentence they add that hardwoods also were in the same category as seasoned wood with regard to creosote build ( :coolsmile: , nobody wants to divulge PAGE 9). I am not sure given how they conducted the study that they could have gotten that result. With so many tests and test controls, I just can't figure out how that could have happened. Very strange IMO.
 
BrotherBart said:
A study that only Battenkiller could love. :lol:
Click to expand...

I think this was in another post, like some one else just mentioned, and yes, Battenkiller posted volumes on it. Right up his alley
 
Warm in RI said:
BrotherBart said:
A study that only Battenkiller could love. :lol:
Click to expand...

I think this was in another post, like some one else just mentioned, and yes, Battenkiller posted volumes on it. Right up his alley
Click to expand...
If it has been posted already, I apologize. I found it looking for something else and couldn't stop reading it...so I thought others like me would enjoy it.
 
Flu temps between 100 F and 212 F to create the creosote. No wonder all woods created creosote.
 
tfdchief said:
Warm in RI said:
BrotherBart said:
A study that only Battenkiller could love. :lol:
Click to expand...

I think this was in another post, like some one else just mentioned, and yes, Battenkiller posted volumes on it. Right up his alley
Click to expand...
If it has been posted already, I apologize. I found it looking for something else and couldn't stop reading it...so I thought others like me would enjoy it.
Click to expand...

No sweat man. It's obvious others missed the last thread too, and it's really interesting so no harm, no foul
 
mywaynow said:
Flu temps between 100 F and 212 F to create the creosote. No wonder all woods created creosote.
Click to expand...
That is probably the key to their findings, but even still, I would not have guessed what they seemingly found.
 
Remkel said:
I have to admit, I went straight to page 9 to see what you were referring to. Interesting information which I will not ruin for anyone else that may read this, but all I can say is it goes against everything I have ever been told. It was also interesting to read about the different species and creosote buildup. Thanks for ruining my reality....
Click to expand...

What I forgot to add was that many many years of burning, many many years of experience in these forums, and many many layers of New England stubborness dictates that I will continue to burn the way I was told over the years...
 
mywaynow said:
Flu temps between 100 F and 212 F to create the creosote. No wonder all woods created creosote.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding!!!

In that section they explain that to maintain those temps they used controls that either fully opened or fully closed the draft to maintain those exact temps during the "creosote buildup" stage (p13). I guarantee the "wet" wood didn't need the draft fully closed as often and as a result, had more air available for some level of actual combustion to occur. The poor dry wood had enough heat in it for pyrolosis yet not enough air to burn it so it just coated everything in what we like to call, creosote.

Remember, their goal here was to create creosote, not to test various wood specimen or condition. As a result of creating creosote they observed what was found on the ever so secretive page 9. I think if they had operated the stove in a more normal manner by leaving the draft open to some degree, rather than slamming it completely open and completely closed at their predetermined high and low temperatures, then the page 9 observation would have been different.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

pen
 
pen said:
mywaynow said:
Flu temps between 100 F and 212 F to create the creosote. No wonder all woods created creosote.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding!!!

In that section they explain that to maintain those temps they used controls that either fully opened or fully closed the draft to maintain those exact temps during the "creosote buildup" stage (p13). I guarantee the "wet" wood didn't need the draft fully closed as often and as a result, had more air available for some level of actual combustion to occur. The poor dry wood had enough heat in it for pyrolosis yet not enough air to burn it so it just coated everything in what we like to call, creosote.

Remember, their goal here was to create creosote, not to test various wood specimen or condition. As a result of creating creosote they observed what was found on the ever so secretive page 9. I think if they had operated the stove in a more normal manner by leaving the draft open to some degree, rather than slamming it completely open and completely closed at their predetermined high and low temperatures, then the page 9 observation would have been different.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

pen
Click to expand...
Pen, Good theory. I think you may have the explanation for page 9. To bad they didn't recognize, or acknowledge that, and indicate it in their findings with regard to page 9 comments....that their test conditions were no where near what anyone would consider normal burning practices.
 
Maybe Im wrong but maybe the creosote is different between the types of wood. It looked like they lumped it all together and we all know that some creosote makes a nice glassy smooth surface which will bubble and plug up chimneys when heated with a good fire and some is flakey.
 
I've only been aware of EPA - rated stoves for 5 years now. Had a smoke dragon before that.
Isn't the main purpose for the cat and secondary reburn methods to treat the exhaust of a wood
fire way different than the exhaust from a pre-EPA stove? They didn't have EPA stoves in 1983, when the
study was done. Thanks for an informative read. What I'm trying to say, without revealing page 9, is
that we were correct all along (at least those who burn with EPA stoves). EPA stoves treat the smoke differently
than whatever devices the study used.
 
It would be interesting to see a study with today's epa burners.
 
tfdchief said:
pen said:
mywaynow said:
Flu temps between 100 F and 212 F to create the creosote. No wonder all woods created creosote.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding!!!

In that section they explain that to maintain those temps they used controls that either fully opened or fully closed the draft to maintain those exact temps during the "creosote buildup" stage (p13). I guarantee the "wet" wood didn't need the draft fully closed as often and as a result, had more air available for some level of actual combustion to occur. The poor dry wood had enough heat in it for pyrolosis yet not enough air to burn it so it just coated everything in what we like to call, creosote.

Remember, their goal here was to create creosote, not to test various wood specimen or condition. As a result of creating creosote they observed what was found on the ever so secretive page 9. I think if they had operated the stove in a more normal manner by leaving the draft open to some degree, rather than slamming it completely open and completely closed at their predetermined high and low temperatures, then the page 9 observation would have been different.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

pen
Click to expand...
Pen, Good theory. I think you may have the explanation for page 9. To bad they didn't recognize, or acknowledge that, and indicate it in their findings with regard to page 9 comments....that their test conditions were no where near what anyone would consider normal burning practices.
Click to expand...

X3! Definitely agree!

I'd also add that pound for pound, the initial temp inside the fire got hotter faster in softwoods than hardwoods (while not noticeably impacting flue temps which the study was controling) which enabled it to minimize contaminents in the exhaust. Ergo... softwoods initially at low flue temps that were controlled to be low created less soot.

This is not the environment wood is burned... users want extended burn times (not short periods of time) of heat and they do not artificially cool the flue temps to 100-212*. More pounds of softwood or green wood (vis a vis hardwood or seasoned wood) would have to be burned inorder to reap the similiar benefits. More creosote would come with greater pounds used of softwood or green wood.

Additionally, perhaps the fed govt incorrectly believed the colder flue temps they used (which exist in traditional open firebox, clay tiled fireplaces) were also characteristic of SS liner or SS insulated liner flues direct connected to wood inserts/stoves.


Finally, the most dangerous thing this Federal Government study proves is that while there does exist some very smart people in government, the government as an organization is clueless about actual use/practical application/human behavior.

For example, higher taxes intuitively mean more government revenue, but the realistic/practical application is that citizens will find ways to avoid/minimize taxes (black/grey market purchasing or simply not buying products which means fewer jobs or not creating businesses because the financial benefit is minimized due to higher taxes).
Sorry if this last sentence is off-topic... the administrator can delete it if it goes against forum rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Chimney Fires White Paper - Read This!
Replies
14
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
V
Chimney length and creosote buildup. Longer pipe = more creosote?
Replies
10
Views
823
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
voland
V
ERP
Multiple chimney fires
Replies
39
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
Trevor Tahclep
Trevor Tahclep
B
Removing creosote by reverse chimney fire
Replies
8
Views
561
HearthStone
Pinesmoke
Pinesmoke
D
Slammer Replacement Advice
Replies
25
Views
883
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
mellow
mellow
Top Bottom
Back