I just started burning wood in a new wood stove 3 weeks ago and I want to know if it is safe to leave the damper open all the time. It is a Vermont Casting Non catalytic stove and it burns hotter when the damper is open. Thank You
Damper Question
- Thread starter handss
- Start date
-
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
besy way to find that out is a stove top thermometer
bring it up to 500 plus damper it down and control the front air intake
bring it up to 500 plus damper it down and control the front air intake
Without dampering down, the heat is just heading up the stack. By dampering down, you are engaging the secondary burn system. It helps the stove burn cleaner and more efficiently extracts heat equaling less wood consumption. Follow Elk's advice.
Dave_1
Feeling the Heat
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
Hmmm …. Seems that a chill has come over this thread.
Perhaps a song will lift up the gloom?
As sung to that great old Submarine Song TAKE 'ER DOWN
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Til we smoke out the folks downtown,
So damper down, So damper down,
And we’ll soon see action from EPA downtown,
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Cause the feds have ensured us all the more,
So damper down, So damper down,
That our cats are not really no more
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Til all is black as pitch downtown,
So damper down, So damper down,
And we’ll blame it on those Fisher’s uptown.
The following EPA Phase 2 (EPA p2) article is an eye opening government admission regarding heater emissions in the real world. Since the obvious conclusion, found in Table 1, was not further tested or discussed it is apparent that the EPA is deliberately suppressing what they know to be true. The following is taken from page 3/4 at:
http://burningissues.org/bi/pdfs/gov.pdf#search="fisher%20wood%20heater”
<snip>
“The particulate emissions for stoves in Portland homes were, on average, higher than the stoves in Klamath Falls homes. This result is consistent with the average higher fuel moisture content & burn rate characteristics of the Portland portion of the study as compared with the Klamath Falls portion of the study.
The particulate emission factors for the certified phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study appear to have become higher with use, but after about 7 years, on average, the certified phase 2 stoves still have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves (Table 1.”)
<snip>
But examining Table 1 it is apparent to the thoughtful reader that the EPA has deceived the public for “conventional“ heaters, which are pre EPA p1, were in fact only twice as dirty as the EPA p2 heaters, not the 10 times as is often cited.
Consequently the fact that a real world documented test produced such contrary evidence to EPA theory was an embarrassing admission the EPA would rather keep under wraps in order to ensure future government funding & their jobs.
And this also is an eye opener regarding how to burn cleaner, for note the EPA’s admission in the first paragraph cited; “… average higher fuel moisture content (mc) & burn rate characteristics …”, which is aka WET WOOD.
The fact that today’s pellet eaters burn wood with a mc of 10% or less is the final nail in the EPA’s deception regarding wood burning emissions. Do the research & you will see that in the late `70’s - early `80’s wood burning testers, whether private or government, thought 20-25% mc to be “seasoned” fire wood. But as can be easily proven to those that will think, pellets with such mc will not work in any pellet eater made! So if you get your fire wood down to @ 12% mc you will eliminate creosote & gain another 20% b.t.u. heat output from each cord.
Friend, in law enforcement that is called a clue!
Dave
Perhaps a song will lift up the gloom?
As sung to that great old Submarine Song TAKE 'ER DOWN
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Til we smoke out the folks downtown,
So damper down, So damper down,
And we’ll soon see action from EPA downtown,
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Cause the feds have ensured us all the more,
So damper down, So damper down,
That our cats are not really no more
Oh damper down, Oh damper down,
Til all is black as pitch downtown,
So damper down, So damper down,
And we’ll blame it on those Fisher’s uptown.
The following EPA Phase 2 (EPA p2) article is an eye opening government admission regarding heater emissions in the real world. Since the obvious conclusion, found in Table 1, was not further tested or discussed it is apparent that the EPA is deliberately suppressing what they know to be true. The following is taken from page 3/4 at:
http://burningissues.org/bi/pdfs/gov.pdf#search="fisher%20wood%20heater”
<snip>
“The particulate emissions for stoves in Portland homes were, on average, higher than the stoves in Klamath Falls homes. This result is consistent with the average higher fuel moisture content & burn rate characteristics of the Portland portion of the study as compared with the Klamath Falls portion of the study.
The particulate emission factors for the certified phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study appear to have become higher with use, but after about 7 years, on average, the certified phase 2 stoves still have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves (Table 1.”)
<snip>
But examining Table 1 it is apparent to the thoughtful reader that the EPA has deceived the public for “conventional“ heaters, which are pre EPA p1, were in fact only twice as dirty as the EPA p2 heaters, not the 10 times as is often cited.
Consequently the fact that a real world documented test produced such contrary evidence to EPA theory was an embarrassing admission the EPA would rather keep under wraps in order to ensure future government funding & their jobs.
And this also is an eye opener regarding how to burn cleaner, for note the EPA’s admission in the first paragraph cited; “… average higher fuel moisture content (mc) & burn rate characteristics …”, which is aka WET WOOD.
The fact that today’s pellet eaters burn wood with a mc of 10% or less is the final nail in the EPA’s deception regarding wood burning emissions. Do the research & you will see that in the late `70’s - early `80’s wood burning testers, whether private or government, thought 20-25% mc to be “seasoned” fire wood. But as can be easily proven to those that will think, pellets with such mc will not work in any pellet eater made! So if you get your fire wood down to @ 12% mc you will eliminate creosote & gain another 20% b.t.u. heat output from each cord.
Friend, in law enforcement that is called a clue!
Dave
- Status
Similar threads
