1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)

Certifiable nut looking for a stove (insert?) in south Alabama

Post in 'The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces' started by Intheswamp, Jun 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    Thanks for the suggestion...just sent an inquiry off to them.

    So far here is my train of thought: If I'm taking away 2.25 of air space then that is removing the equivalent of R=3.2175. With that mentality (lots of people think I'm a mental case, anyhoo...) then I will need the prescribed R=1.1 value PLUS the R=3.2175 value that was taken away by removing the 2.25" of air space. This is kind of like the Chinese do...reverse engineer it.

    The original configuration:

    F3CB Requirements
    Tall Legs Inches R-Value
    Required ? 1.10
    Air Space (ventilated) 1.00 1.43
    Air Space (ventilated) 1.00 1.43
    Air Space (ventilated) 0.25 0.36

    Totals 2.25 4.32

    These are the clearances that I came up with between the top of the rear exit flue and the lintel:

    Height Height
    F3CB Tall Legs Short Legs
    Lintel 27.00 27.00
    Top of Flue -25.56 -23.31

    Flue Clearance/
    Hearth Thickness 1.44" 3.69"

    And this is what I think it would take to get to the required R=4.32 which would leave roughly .6" clearance between lintel and pipe...might be enough for double-wall pipe?:

    Inches R-Value
    Ceramic Tile 0.25 0.01
    Cement/Thinset 0.25 0.05
    Durock Cement Board 0.50 0.26
    Ceramic Board (Micore) 0.50 1.10
    Ceramic Board (Micore) 0.50 1.10
    Ceramic Board (Micore) 0.50 1.10
    Ceramic Board (Micore) 0.50 1.10

    3.00" R= 4.72

    Maybe that wasn't too confusing, but I think that would work. Is having 2 inches of micor too much in regards to structural integrity (will it mash/sag)?

    Ah, well I see the formating didn't work out very well...
    Again...clear as mud,
    Ed

    ....one cell at a time.

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,610
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    This is making my head hurt. The hearth needs to be R=1.1 for the F3CB. What is all this air space (ventilated) info about? Where did the R 4.32 requirement come from???
  3. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    You didn't think I wanted to have all the fun by myself, did you???<g>

    This is a train of thought (probably about to derail) that I got going because there was no information in any Jotul owner's manual that I looked at about the short leg kit in regards to altering the R-Value requirement when the kits are used. Thus...

    The short leg kit lowers the stove by 2.25".

    Each inch of ventilated air space is equivalent to R1.43

    2.25 x 1.43 = 3.2175

    An R-value of 3.2175 of floor protection was thus lost when the stove is lowered by 2.25 inches.

    The stove already required an R-value of 1.1.

    R3.2175 (lost air space) + R1.1 (original tall leg r-value required) = R4.3175

    R4.3175 equals the sum of the r-value of lost ventilated air space plus the original required r-value.

    I was just trying to determine the required r-value for the F3CB with the short leg kit...seems there's no information out there regarding short leg kits and getting information from Jotul is almost impossible. I did email Lehmans as tutu-sue suggested...guess I need to wait and see what they say. I really wonder if there are a good many F3CB's (and other models) installed with short leg kits that don't have near the floor protection that they should have. But, I'm an 800 pound gorilla in the room, what do I know? :)

    ...one cell at a time (it's contagious).

    Ed
  4. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    I received a response from Lehman's regarding my questions of using the short leg kit with the F3CB and whether it would impact floor protection requirements. Here is a direct quote....

    "We talked with our rep at Jotul and this stove does not need higher r-value floor protection with the short-leg kit."

    Just seems odd to move a heat source that much closer and for it not to affect r-values.

    Ah well, the fog thickens....

    Ed
  5. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    ...and then I'm reading in the wiki here http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Hearth_Design/ :

    Once again, this number represents a MINIMUM value, a higher value will do no harm. Note that once built, it is for all intents and purposes, not possible to increase the R-value of a hearth without completely dismantling it and rebuilding it from scratch. Therefore, it is a wise decision to “over-build” the hearth to meet the requirements of any stove that might be installed on it in the future. If doing this, an R-2.5 hearth will exceed the requirements of almost any stove this author is aware of. (Except stoves using short leg kits which can cause unusually high requirements)

    ...and the fog thickens more.
    Ed
  6. Todd

    Todd Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,226
    Loc:
    Lake Wissota
    I would go with what Lehman says. Jotul probably tested the stove with the short legs and just kept the same R value for the tall legs without having to retest.
  7. tutu_sue

    tutu_sue New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    489
    Loc:
    Northern NJ
    There is nothing to doubt. It's perfectly clear by Jotul's response that the stove was tested with short legs, passed and was UL listed with R=1.1.
  8. BrotherBart

    BrotherBart Hearth.com LLC Mid-Atlantic Division Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    29,062
    Loc:
    Northern Virginia
    With its standard bottom heat shield it just does not get all that hot under the lil sucker.
  9. fossil

    fossil Accidental Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,321
    Loc:
    Bend, OR
    No way that a properly troweled layer of thinset's gonna account for 1/4" of thickness...more like 1/16" or so. Apply with an appropriately notched trowel, and tap the overlay material in with a rubber mallet. Remove what squishes out the sides with a putty knife & damp sponge. It's just supposed to be an adhesive, nothing more. Rick
  10. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    Thanks everybody for the feedback on the short leg kit r-value confusion. I hadn't thought that they might have tested the F3CB with the short legs installed. That makes good sense to me that a company that produces something of quality such as the Jotul stoves would test for the extremes. Ok, I'll take my tin-foil hat off now.

    fossil, I took a random stab at the thickness of the thinset. Being as it didn't contribute much to the r-value I wanted to be sure I had enough thickness in there for clearance purposes. What you mentioned helps me to understand more the process, though. I was truly thinking more along the lines of laying the tiles down in a bed of thinset rather than using the thinset for just adhesion...hmmm, 'reckon that's why they named it "thinset"? :cheese: I've got to get to studying up on setting tile...

    Of course, all of this foggy thinking of mine got me chasing stove manuals again....more questions to come.

    Ed
  11. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,610
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Ya know if this goes on much longer, the stove is going to cost $200 more since this thread started. Fall and winter pricing is just around the corner.
  12. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    Wow, I just said basically the same thing to my wife earlier tonight!

    I messed up and looked at the Castine manual again tonight. It still says 29-1/2" clearance and can be lowered 2-1/4" with the short leg kit...still too tall. Then I was looking at the Jotul brochure that I picked up at a stove dealer the other day (yelp, finally made it to a stove store!). The brochure states that for the Castine that the top of the flue when using the short legs is 25-3/4"....huh? I think a couple of brain cells got through the gate at the same time when I read that! With the 25-3/4" height that would leave me 1-1/4" of clearance. My lintel is 4 inches thick/deep and I'm not sure what type (thickness) of fitting has to go on the stove's smoke outlet to connect the stove pipe. In the brochure it looks like it would fit...in the manual it definitely looks like it won't. The way I read it it only calls for ember protection as long as the bottom heat shield if used.

    I emailed the guy at the stove store to see if he would measure it and let me know the actual top of flue height.

    In regards to a stove pipe for connecting to the flue....how thick are these pipes? Seems that they are thin-walled as best I can tell. How about double-wall?

    Thanks as usual....and yes, I gotta make a decision SOON!!!!

    Ed
    ...ordered some more brain cells but they're on back-order...rationing out those few that are left.
  13. tutu_sue

    tutu_sue New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    489
    Loc:
    Northern NJ
    In the Castine manual page 14, 25 3/4" is the width of the stove not the height to the top of the flue exit. The manual shows the top of the flue exit is 29 1/2". That stove requires 6" stove pipe. Double wall pipe will add another inch to the flue exit.
  14. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    I agree with the width being reported in the manual as 25-3/4"...it also states the same dimension in the sales brochure.

    What I'm seeing in the manual is that it shows the top of the "top exit" is at 29-1/2" but that the apparently marked center of the "rear exit" is at 25-1/2". Add 3" to that for the radius of the flue and it's sitting at 28-1/2"...and inch shorter than the top exit. If the short leg kit is used that lowers everything 2-1/4", resulting in the top of the rear exit flue being at 26-1/4"...which is still confusing and is not what is stated in the sales brochure (25-3/4").

    I believe it's irrelevant, though. The wife is interested in a slightly raised hearth and there will not be enough room for much more than an ember pad under the Castine...even if it would fit under my 27" lintel.

    Ed
    ...and the brain cells go, marching 2-by-2, as Ed wrings his hands wondering what to do...
  15. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    I'm figuring the Castine will not fit under lintel...just seems from the mixed up info that it won't and if it will it might be too close for a comfortable install (lintel/pipe proximity). Thus, I guess I need to concentrate on the two wood burners below. I like the looks of the cast iron stove much better, but the the plate steel is more utilitarian/functional. ARGHHHHH!!!!!!!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Sorry for the rough cut and paste and everything may not be sized exactly, but maybe this will give ya'll an idea of what we're looking at. The hearth will be raised a couple of inches for either one and covered in some type of natural stone/tile look.

    The insert image is a Lopi Revere, but we are actually looking at the Republic 1750i, instead...just seem to like it better...the flat lipped ashlip actually seems sturdier than the Revere with the rolled edge trim. One thing about the 1750i that I don't care for is the "gray" color....will it cure out and get darker?...lighter? Is there a problem with painting it stove black?

    The F3CB is apparently a bad picture of a matte black stove...if we go with the F3 we will be getting the blue/black enamel. With the short leg kit it should have no problem fitting under the lintel. We will put sheet metal panels just inside the fireplace's firebox if we get the F3. For looks I take this one hands down....but I'm afraid I will regret the smaller firebox size...but then again, we're in south Alabama.

    Agonizing Ed
    ...now where'd those brain cells go...hope that back-order gets here soon!
  16. firefighterjake

    firefighterjake Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    15,635
    Loc:
    Unity/Bangor, Maine
    I like the looks of the F3 . . . but then again I'm a big fan of Jotuls.

    Perhaps more important though than looks is whether a stove is large enough to do the job . . . which is namely heating the house.

    Will you be keeping the large chocolate puppy on the hearth . . . if so I'm afraid it may melt. ;)
  17. Todd

    Todd Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,226
    Loc:
    Lake Wissota
    IMHO the Jotul looks better sitting there. I'm not a big fan of the insert surrounds. Also, it's not really that hard to move the lintel up a couple course's of brick if you want the Castine or Oslo.
  18. ddddddden

    ddddddden Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,329
    Loc:
    Central Va
    +1 on the Jotul for looks. Are there any clearance requirements for lintels? Just enough room for the flue pipe to have some rise as it runs into the fireplace?
  19. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    firefighterjake, I agree hands-down that the Jotul takes the prize in the beauty contest. It's the conflict between the aesthetic aspect of the Jotul and the "large enough" aspect of the Republic 1750i that is causing me so much indecision. Either way, I don't think either will be a perfect choice. I think the Castine would be better, but...it has to fit.

    Todd, I'm not too crazy about the surrounds, either. My wife, though, likes the idea because it blocks off the view of inside the fireplace's firebox which is a little moisture stained or whatever (nothing bad). I've explained that we can recess a piece of sheet metal into the fireplace (one red brick deep) and that would effectually block off the firebox without covering over the brick fireplace face. She's ok with that. As for raising the lintel...that's a scary thought for me, I guess that's a "call the brick mason" project...??? That would let the Castine slip under there.

    Den, I've wondered the same thing about required lintel clearances and in all the manuals that I've looked in I haven't seen anything mentioned about it. I'm thinking that it's a 1/4" per foot of rise for a horizontal stove pipe that is required...I just looked in the F3 manual but don't see it noted there...I'll have to look elsewhere to be sure of that rise.

    Ed
  20. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,610
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    You've wanted the Castine all along, so go for it. It will look great in there. Call a brick mason and have the lintel raised. Get the stove with the bottom heat shield and the hearth won't need modification. Just be sure the rear exit pipe has a generous upward pitch and that there is adequate flue draft for the stove. Otherwise it will spill smoke when trying to fire it up when it's 50 degrees outside.
  21. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    Here is a rough floor plan of the house. The areas in blue are areas that I'm primarily interested in heating and these areas equal roughly 960 square feet. Total square footage of the house is 1840 sq ft. The ceilings are 9'. Anything heated beyond the blue area would be "gravy".

    I realize that the master bedroom is problematical being as it has a standard doorway and no large opening going into it. I've thought that positioning a fan in the blue area doorway of the master bedroom blowing into the living room might actually create a good movement of air coming back around through the hallway behind the living room.

    Being as the Jotul F3CB is stated to heat "up to 1300 square feet" should I be safe to believe that it would heat the blue area (provided I can get the heat moved into the bedroom)? The house has significant ceiling insulation, uninsulated heavy mortarboard framed brick walls, and *many* really large single pane, leaky windows (some of the avg small windows are 4'x5').

    Any final thoughts on all of this...I'm hoping to make a decision this Monday and place an order!

    Ed
    ...I know I put some brain cells somewhere around here....just can't seem to find'em.

    [​IMG]
  22. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,610
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    The crux of the problem appears to be size: "It’s the conflict between the aesthetic aspect of the Jotul and the “large enough” aspect of the Republic 1750i that is causing me so much indecision."

    The F3CB will do the job, it just is going to need to be fed every 3-4 hrs when it is below zero outside. It seems like you have all the info necessary for a decision. Personally, I'd get the F400. With no hearth modification, it will take less work to install and will heat all 1840 sq ft with one fan assisting the air circulation. If you go for something else, you will still be pining for a nice blue-black F400 on the hearth. Might as well just go for it and be happy. If it were me, I'd get offline and call a couple masons today. Get some opinions and quotes for raising the lintel.
  23. Intheswamp

    Intheswamp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    819
    Loc:
    South Central Alabama
    BG, you are probably correct in saying the Castine would basically be the right choice for me. I'm still a little confused with the clearances of it, but crawled into the fireplace's firebox to look and see what the lintel looked like from the inside. What I found has let some of the air out of my sails somewhat...I'm not sure what I've got, whether I should vent a stove through this fireplace, or if I'm worrying over nothing.

    In the pictures below, the duct tape is holding a piece of styrofoam in the throat of the fireplace (pretty good tape and styrofoam...been there for 18 years). A couple of bricks above the lintel there is a piece of 2x wood running parallel with the lintel. I'm not sure if this is a permanent piece of the structure or if it was a temporary brace of some kind to be "burned out" later on after the fireplace's construction was completed.

    The two old propane floor furnace's flues (non-working/disconnected now) vented into the backside of the chimney/fireplace from inside the crawlspace beneath the floor. I was figuring on bricking off those vent entries into the fireplace.

    With the wood member inside the firebox and the venting of the furnances into the back/bottom of the fireplace does this mean this fireplace is basically just a "show" fireplace or something?...the only thing ever inside of the firebox that I recall was a very old fake fire with with small logs nailed together and a red colored light bulb in it. My grandparents built the house back around 1950 and I was born in 1957...the fake fire has been in the firebox since I can remember, I've never known of a fire being burned in this fireplace.

    Here's the photos....

    Here's when I first looked behind the lintel...duct tape and styrofoam board showing...
    [​IMG]

    Here is after I tore off the lower strip of duct tape revealing the 2x piece of wood with duct tape residue sticking to it and the angle iron...
    [​IMG]

    And one more shot for a better look at the wood...
    [​IMG]

    Thoughts anybody? I'm all ears....

    Ed
  24. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,610
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Looks like bringing in a mason and a certified chimney sweep for an opinion is a better idea than ever. What ever you do, it will hopefully be an improvement.

    Seriously, you need some professional eyeballs looking at this system. It sounds like a lot of safety violations here. There's no way we can assess this over the web or tell you with confidence that the system is ok to burn in. In the least, prepare for a full, insulated liner right down to the stove.
  25. ddddddden

    ddddddden Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,329
    Loc:
    Central Va
    What would be the best way to maintain some flue pitch in a lintel-hugging installation? 45-deg appliance adapter instead of a tee?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page