A common misconception about wood stoves...

[Poodleheadmikey]

Speaking of wood stinking -

Some years ago my neighbors (who all burn wood) concluded that my wood stove (furnace actually) was stinking up the neighborhood. One of them had some agency out here repeatedly photographing the smoke coming from my chimney - until two friends of mine snatched him out of his car and gave him a little talking to. He either never came back or maybe just hid a lot better after that.

Anyway; at some point I concluded that I just didn't care enough and stopped burning any wood. I installed a bunch of hydronic solars panels and haven't burned any wood for at least the last five or six years.

This past January someone came to my door - they were here to "inspect my wood stove installation". It made me laugh out loud and I asked how they knew I had a wood stove. "From the smoke and smell." he said. "We've had several complaints recently from your neighbors."

I told him to come back with a search warrant and I'd show him around.

I was kind of hoping that he would come back as my wood stove is long gone and my wood furnace hasn't even had a flue pipe on it for years. <g>

PHM
------

 

[Martin Strand III]

Did you ever think you could have been burning "dirty" in that wood furnace giving validity to the complaint?

Burning "clean" means burning HOT. Usually, this means NO SMOKE.

Are you sure you weren't part of "the problem" most are now trying to correct?

Aye,
Marty

 

[Poodleheadmikey]

How could I be a part of the problem?

I wasn't burning any wood. <g>

PHM
------

 

[Martin Strand III]

Speaking of wood stinking - ... the smoke coming from my chimney .... I just didn't care enough ... "From the smoke and smell."...
PHM
------

From your own words.

FYI: hot clean fires produce little "smoke". Had you been burning this way, complaints may not have been made.

After you stopped burning (years), the smell of smoke residuals around your house apparently was significant enough for more complaints.
This strengthens the supposition you were burning "dirty" in the first place.

That's the problem.

Aye,
Marty

 

[Battenkiller]

Burning "clean" means burning HOT. Usually, this means NO SMOKE.

And I'll state that nobody can put a fresh load of dry wood on a hot coal bed and burn completely clean in the beginning. And that the absence of visible smoke is not an indication of complete combustion later on in the burn. Maybe pollutants are clear gases, and it is really hard to tell exactly how little smoke is being emitted without some sort of sophisticated optical measuring device.

Yes, burn hot with enough air, but even at 90% combustion efficiency, 10% of your wood fuel is going out into the open air... where if it really is 40X as toxic as cigarette smoke, we all better quit burning today. Besides, how many folks really believe they are burning as clean as the EPA test burns? Those tests are about as clean as you're ever gonna see, in tightly controlled conditions, with precisely formulated test loads that the stoves have been deliberately designed to burn so they can pass the tests and then be sold.

BTW how are you quantifying those cancer rates? We used to make one group smoke two packs a day, and have another group deliberately inhale wood smoke for 30 years and then compare the incidence of cancer. We only found wood smoke to be 11.3X as likely to cause cancer as cigarette smoke. Musta been a different study you are referring to. Of course, we used only convicted murderers and ethnic minorities in our study, with non-smoking/non-woodburning/tofu-sucking Caucasian yuppie vegans as a control group, so that may have been a confound we didn't account for. ;-P

 

[Jimbob]

Here's a good article on EPA vs. real world smoke emissions.
Look at the interior pic of the 11 year old Pacific Energy stove, it still looks and performs well.
http://www.woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=31

 

[hotprinter]

For whatever it's worth, I almost never get smoke from the stove when I reload, only occasionally when I'm starting up a basically cold stove in the morning. But I have superb draft, just short of too much.

REPLY:
That is the key, good draft. I recommend before opening your stove, open the draft and intake air to maximum for a short time to get the stack heated, that helps the draw. And if the stack has a damper open it wide open as well. Also, if you have a bypass lever, open it. After I do this, there is no smoke that gets into the room, it is drafted up the chimney and out as it is meant to be...

 

[Martin Strand III]

Burning "clean" means burning HOT. Usually, this means NO SMOKE.

And I'll state that nobody can put a fresh load of dry wood on a hot coal bed and burn completely clean in the beginning. And that the absence of visible smoke is not an indication of complete combustion later on in the burn. Maybe pollutants are clear gases, and it is really hard to tell exactly how little smoke is being emitted without some sort of sophisticated optical measuring device.

Yes, burn hot with enough air, but even at 90% combustion efficiency, 10% of your wood fuel is going out into the open air... where if it really is 40X as toxic as cigarette smoke, we all better quit burning today. Besides, how many folks really believe they are burning as clean as the EPA test burns? Those tests are about as clean as you're ever gonna see, in tightly controlled conditions, with precisely formulated test loads that the stoves have been deliberately designed to burn so they can pass the tests and then be sold.

BTW how are you quantifying those cancer rates? We used to make one group smoke two packs a day, and have another group deliberately inhale wood smoke for 30 years and then compare the incidence of cancer. We only found wood smoke to be 11.3X as likely to cause cancer as cigarette smoke. Musta been a different study you are referring to. Of course, we used only convicted murderers and ethnic minorities in our study, with non-smoking/non-woodburning/tofu-sucking Caucasian yuppie vegans as a control group, so that may have been a confound we didn't account for. ;-P

Well, I did type "usually" no smoke. I won't argue on start up and adding on. Of course there's some smoke in a wood fire at start up and adding more later on a hot coal bed. But these times are minuscule compared to the rest of the burn cycle, assuming the remainder is burned hot, relatively almost smokeless.

If your list of goodies is correct, your "1977" Vigilant is pre-phase II which explains why you seem to be defending visible smoke. Even if you don't produce much visible smoke, you (and other pre-phase II burners) are putting out more than 3 X the emissions per hour than phase II burners.

Wood Burning Stoves Particulate Emissions (Grams/Hour)
Pre-Phase II 24
Phase II 7
Masonry 3
Pellet 2.7

Excuse me. My error. 1970's vintage stoves: "A typical airtight woodstove of this vintage emits 40-60 grams of particulates into the airshed every hour, and airborne wood smoke particulates become a problem in rural areas where woodburning is prevalent. (www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoepareg.htm) Sixty grams/hour is a lot: 60 Gm/1000Gm/Kg = 0.06 Kg = 0.122 lbs = 2 oz every hour.

Additionally, even "near" complete combustion of wood cannot be accomplished in your dinosaur (or most other non-cat metal stoves) since this requires firebox temperatures well above what metal stoves can withstand without over firing. One has to graduate to nearly all masonry (or a pellet stove) to get really clean burns.

Of course, I could be wrong. If you don't burn your 1977 Vigilant, I apologize.

Aye,
Marty

 

[loon]

I wouldn't let that locust go to waste. That is a lot of BTU's there. If your stove is working properly and you allow it to season (as it should) you won't have any problems.

pen

not a very good pic (out the front window) but here is the pile of locust i pushed up last summer, definitely wont go to waste pen as i might even start cutting it today and it will be going in leo's woodstove next season ;-)


loon

will get a better picture later...

maybe not a cord of locust? but a good chunk

 

[Battenkiller]

If your list of goodies is correct, your "1977" Vigilant is pre-phase II which explains why you seem to be defending visible smoke. Even if you don't produce much visible smoke, you (and other pre-phase II burners) are putting out more than 3 X the emissions per hour than phase II burners.

Of course, I could be wrong. If you don't burn your 1977 Vigilant, I apologize.

I ain't defending visible smoke at all, it's a sin in any stove IMHO.

'Course I burn 'er. I got plenty of smoke-free vids and pics of my stove burning clean as anybody else claims their EPA stove does just by looking at their stack. I have study data that shows a Vig emitting an average of 35 g/hr at all burn rates with seasoned oak and only 20 g/hr burning green oak... without the bypass damper sending it into secondary combustion. Don't go comparing the old VCs with the typical "smoke dragon" burning all choked down, they were good stoves and you can burn them real clean if you pay attention to all the necessary factors. No, it is not as clean per hour as an EPA rated stove, but it sends all of it's heat out of the box and is a heck of a lot friendlier to operate, so maybe now I think I'll keep her forever... or at least until several years after I'm dead and gone. ;-)

Bottom line is that all that matters in the real world is total PM emitted, or PM g/kg burned, not g/hr. Everybody with an EPA stove seems to need 4-5 cord to heat their homes, I need 4-5 cord to heat my home. Ponder a bit on why that is significant to the question at hand.

 

[Martin Strand III]

If your list of goodies is correct, your "1977" Vigilant is pre-phase II which explains why you seem to be defending visible smoke. Even if you don't produce much visible smoke, you (and other pre-phase II burners) are putting out more than 3 X the emissions per hour than phase II burners.

Of course, I could be wrong. If you don't burn your 1977 Vigilant, I apologize.

I ain't defending visible smoke at all, it's a sin in any stove IMHO.

'Course I burn 'er. I got plenty of smoke-free vids and pics of my stove burning clean as anybody else claims their EPA stove does just by looking at their stack. I have study data that shows a Vig emitting an average of 35 g/hr at all burn rates with seasoned oak and only 20 g/hr burning green oak... without the bypass damper sending it into secondary combustion. Don't go comparing the old VCs with the typical "smoke dragon" burning all choked down, they were good stoves and you can burn them real clean if you pay attention to all the necessary factors. No, it is not as clean per hour as an EPA rated stove, but it sends all of it's heat out of the box and is a heck of a lot friendlier to operate, so maybe now I think I'll keep her forever... or at least until several years after I'm dead and gone. ;-)

Bottom line is that all that matters in the real world is total PM emitted, or PM g/kg burned, not g/hr. Everybody with an EPA stove seems to need 4-5 cord to heat their homes, I need 4-5 cord to heat my home. Ponder a bit on why that is significant to the question at hand.

Oh, I've pondered - long 'nuf.

And, I'd like to see that study of yours supporting your claim of only emitting 1/2 of the published amount in your '77 pre-pre-phase II.

Yours, and others like yours, is the "dragon" that is giving the rest of us (well intended) clean burners a bad name. Your rationalization for keeping that thing is what? The means justify the ends (it keeps me warm and I like it no matter what it does, who it harms or what anyone says)? I'm sorry. I don't buy that. That is the attitude which will lead to Big Brother clamping down on the rest of us, which is happening now (look at Washington state's permissible emission amounts - I recall it's something like LESS THAN 4.5 Gm/Hr for a wood burning stove/insert). And you could be putting out 60 Gm/Hr.

No. Gum flapping does not cut the mustard. Measure up or get out. If we don't 'police' our own, someone else will (and is) to the detriment of those who comply with the standards.

Aye,
Marty
Grandma used to say, "One rotten apple will spoil the lot."

 

[Battenkiller]

Oh, I've pondered - long 'nuf.

And, I'd like to see that study of yours supporting your claim of only emitting 1/2 of the published amount in your '77 pre-pre-phase II.

Yours is the "dragon" that is giving the rest of us (well intended) clean burners a bad name. Your rationalization for keeping that thing is what? The means justify the ends (it keeps me warm and I like it no matter what it does, who it harms or what anyone says)? I'm sorry. I don't buy that. That is the attitude which will lead to Big Brother clamping down on the rest of us, which is happening now (look at Washington state's permissible emission amounts - I recall it's something like LESS THAN 4.5 Gm/Hr for a wood burning stove/insert).

No. Gum flapping does not cut the mustard. Measure up or get out. If we don't 'police' our own, someone else will (and is) to the detriment of those who comply with the standards.


Grandma used to say, "One rotten apple will spoil the lot."

OMG! You're hilarious! Really? Well.....


I guess Grandma's right. I am a rotten apple, no doubt about that. But I makes good cider when ya squeezes me. :cheese:


Here ya go (see attached photo). The chart shows about 37 g/hr with seasoned oak, about 19 g/hr burning green oak. That's with the stove not in its more efficient downdraft mode. I'm sure I do much better with the stove at 600-750º with the bypass damper closed.


Now... I'd like to see the study showing my stove emits 60g/hr, so right back at ya. All you're telling me is that some guy who is in the industry says a "typical" airtight produced that much, not a specific stove. There were stoves back then that were even cleaner than mine, like the Kent in the same study the chart was taken from - about 13 g/hr of PM.


I got too much on my plate this evening. I'm hours from being ready to go on a 400 miles road trip. I have to be in Ridgway, PA by 9 AM and the weather is threatening, so I'm gonna let you have the last word here (which I'm sure is imminent). But like I said, I'll burn my beauty until Big Brother (EPA) outlaws it. Here are two reasons why:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/Battenkiller#p/u/0/k9G_MQ9uWz0[/youtube]



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/Battenkiller#p/u/4/IxdzM2NbWY4[/youtube]



I also have three clips showing my chimney while I was burning a good size load of freshly cut black birch (about 60% MC), and all you see is heat waves against a blue sky. I'm too pressed for time to upload it right now, but I'll get around to it soon. Now, since I don't usually burn freshly cut wood, and since you say I will get my cleanest burns using very dry wood, and since my usual wood is hovering around 12% MC, I imagine I burn so clean I might actually clean the blue right out of the sky. ;-P

 

[Battenkiller]

Changed my mind, I did have time after all.

 

[Install fire 1]

Quite the thread.

 

[Martin Strand III]

BK:

More gum flapping to justify your outdated polluting wood burning device:

* I did not say YOUR stove emits 60 Gm/Hr. Read what was said 2/20/11 at 321 PM on this thread and check the reference for emissions of 70's stoves, like yours.
* Homemade charts and videos can be made to show anything to defend almost any position, wrong or other. These you present mean nada.
* Emitting 35 Gm/Hr (your data, your stove, if accurate ?), this is 5 X more than most modern phase II stoves burn today. Simply, it stinks. And, you're content?

Nowhere in almost 50 years of wood burning have I encountered the outrageous claim that burning wood at 60% MC (green wood has about 50% MC) is a good idea for residential wood stoves as you have indicated.

Google "wood burning efficiency" to see data that supports burning seasoned wood (20% MC) compared to green wood (50% MC). This has nothing to do with the stove, just the wood.
* Doubles BTUs/ton
* Increases efficiency 10% (less water to boil off before the wood can begin pyrolysis)
* Doubles net heat value of the fuel

Please don't take any of this personally. I realize my comments won't change your views; you are right, the industry is wrong.
Maybe others will be able to see the difference between the smoke and the fire.

Aye,
Marty

 

[pen]

Just to put another poker into the fire if we want to continue to complain about outdoor wood smoke versus indoor as the original poster I believe was intending.....

If I had to help my neighbor choose between burning a "smoke dragon" pre-epa stove over them putting in an outdoor wood burner I'd help with the install of the pre-epa stove and even bring a case of beer with me. I'd be at the bar drowning my sorrows if he choose the OWB.

Nothing against the idea, but the pollution on the OWB in my area is incredible. The technology needs to improve.

pen

 

[Battenkiller]

BK:

More gum flapping to justify your outdated polluting wood burning device:

* I did not say YOUR stove emits 60 Gm/Hr. Read what was said 2/20/11 at 321 PM on this thread and check the reference for emissions of 70's stoves, like yours.
* Homemade charts and videos can be made to show anything to defend almost any position, wrong or other. These you present mean nada.
* Emitting 35 Gm/Hr (your data, your stove, if accurate ?), this is 5 X more than most modern phase II stoves burn today. Simply, it stinks. And, you're content?

Nowhere in almost 50 years of wood burning have I encountered the outrageous claim that burning wood at 60% MC (green wood has about 50% MC) is a good idea for residential wood stoves as you have indicated.

Google "wood burning efficiency" to see data that supports burning seasoned wood (20% MC) compared to green wood (50% MC). This has nothing to do with the stove, just the wood.
* Doubles BTUs/ton
* Increases efficiency 10% (less water to boil off before the wood can begin pyrolysis)
* Doubles net heat value of the fuel

Please don't take any of this personally. I realize my comments won't change your views; you are right, the industry is wrong.
Maybe others will be able to see the difference between the smoke and the fire.

Aye,
Marty

Well, looks like that storm has intensified dramatically right over my destination, so we are putting off our departure until sometime tomorrow. So....

Marty, Marty, Marty....

Do your read all the words? Really?

Nowhere did I ever state that my stove is the clean burning equivalent of a modern EPA stove. Nowhere ever have I condoned the burning of green wood as a common heating practice. I posted that video, not to show that it should be done, but that it could be done. Quite cleanly, in fact. Lots of heat, in fact. Enough to make my stove hit almost 1000º before I got scared and closed it down. The point? It ain't the stove so much, or the wood so much, it's the operator that is far and away the biggest contributor to smoke pollution. A savvy operator can burn just about anything cleanly, and a nimrod can gunk up a cat stove that puts out <1g/hr during the EPA test. I do not cause smoke pollution with my stove at any time. In order to cause smoke pollution, you need to have smoke, right? I'll stack my stack up against anybody here. I've done much worse with my outdoor grill, my fire pit, my indoor fireplace, my chiminea, and with thousands of campfires I've built in the wilderness. Hell, I make more smoke with one rack of ribs than I make all season with my stove. Please don't tell me (and many others here) that I have to give that up as well.

No amount of guilt tripping is ever gonna make me drop $3K for a new stove when I have a perfectly good heater in place right now. I burn it as cleanly as I can and I'm leaving it at that. I go way overboard compared to most folks in reducing my burning of carbon-sequenstered fossil fuels in internal combustion engines, but I don't get on here and rag on folks for running all over the countryside in their big trucks, billowing smoke, oil and pollution out of their chainsaws just to save a few bucks. I buy almost all of my wood from guys who can do it a lot more efficiently that I can (or they'd be out of business tomorrow). Live and let live. Or air out your own dirty laundry here before you start casting stones at others. In case you didn't notice, there is a whole new forum here dedicated to those folks who chose to stick with the old technology. Hopefully, all will benefit from improved burning practices with these devices as tips begin to emerge over time. Let's stop insulting folks who differ from you, and tend to how you feel you should live your own life... and stop pontificating about how wonderfully you live yours.

BTW that wasn't some homemade chart I came up with, that was taken from a study of several wood burning devices that was done in the 80s by one of the preeminent wood burning technologists in the world, Dr. Jay Shelton. He's forgotten more about solid fuels than all of us here have learned together.

Also, you are quite adept at confusing the facts to make your own case. You conveniently use the weight of the wood to show how inefficient burning green wood is (which, in fact, is not 50% MC, but varies widely from as little as 30% to over 200% depending on species and a host of other variables), when you know full well that the water part of the weight doesn't burn. In either case, however, the wood always has the same amount of wood fiber in any given split. The evaporation energy lost from that total potential energy has been proven to be less than 10% in most wood burning devices, with less PM produced with greener wood... at least in the old stoves.

 

[Battenkiller]

Nothing against the idea, but the pollution on the OWB in my area is incredible. The technology needs to improve.

No argument on that subject, brother. ;-)

 

[GAMMA RAY]

Wow, do I know how to start an interesting thread? Who would have thunk it??? Hey pen is a moderator now congrats! My husband forbid me to get involved in this thread-he said let it reside with the people who know what they are taking about so the lips are zippered........

 

[pen]

Wow, do I know how to start an interesting thread? Who would have thunk it??? Hey pen is a moderator now congrats! My husband forbid me to get involved in this thread-he said let it reside with the people who know what they are taking about so the lips are zippered........

Thanks Gamma. The power of the "force" is amazing. I don't think it's caused my head to swell yet. However there does seem to be something going on with my eyes. :gulp:

 

[Martin Strand III]

Burning in an outdated 1/3 century old metal stove, implying that similar stoves as yours put out 35 Gm/Hr particulate emissions and claiming you burn as clean as anybody else determined by eyeballing your stack simply does not add up.

All else aside, I'll bow out after finding something I do agree with:

"It ain’t the stove so much, or the wood so much, it’s the operator that is far and away the biggest contributor to smoke pollution."

Aye,
Marty

 

[Battenkiller]

However there does seem to be something going on with my eyes.

Yeah, that's right, Pen. It's always smoke.... smoke and mirrors, that is. Must be, unless it's going on right in front of your own eyes, then it's Gospel. :roll:


Or maybe not even then. I'm reminded of ol' Chris Columbus, his men near mutiny as they come closer and closer to the end of the flat world. I'm sure after they got back to the Old World they lay in the arms of their loved ones and said, "I don't care what we found out there... I still say the world is flat."

And for them it always was, and always would be.

I'm out of your thread as well, Gamma. Left a real bitter taste in my mouth. :-S

 

[oldspark]

I gave up a while back!

 

[pen]

Left a real bitter taste in my mouth. :-S

Hehe, yea, smoke will do that %-P

pen

 

[oldspark]

However there does seem to be something going on with my eyes.

Yeah, that's right, Pen. It's always smoke.... smoke and mirrors, that is. Must be, unless it's going on right in front of your own eyes, then it's Gospel. :roll:


Or maybe not even then. I'm reminded of ol' Chris Columbus, his men near mutiny as they come closer and closer to the end of the flat world. I'm sure after they got back to the Old World they lay in the arms of their loved ones and said, "I don't care what we found out there... I still say the world is flat."

And for them it always was, and always would be.

I'm out of your thread as well, Gamma. Left a real bitter taste in my mouth. :-S

BK, your posts are some of the most thought out fact filled ones there are so do not let some one who thinks he knows more than he does bother you. I know you wont but I wanted to weigh in.