Florida Bungalow Syndrome Comments

[Corie]

Just read the article in the title by John Gulland.

Just to comment and perhaps start a dialog, please don't modify your air control or change your stove any way to remedy this problem. I really have a hard time agreeing with anyone that suggests this is a solution. I know manufacturers often say do not install barometric or flue dampers or flue top restrictions, BUT please consider using a damper before you consider modifying the air control system of the stove.

Modifying your stove can cause a long list of issues, but the most important one to mention is that the warranty will be voided if this modification is found.

 

[Diabel]

The tin foil idea sounded logical & simple but I did not try it. The stove has been working just fine for the past few weeks. If I do not load it full with good wood it does not run away on me...so I load it 2/3 or so & I get about 6hrs out of it (I am ok with that for now). Come spring, for the first time I will be the one to clean the chimney A flue damper will go in at that time..as a precautionary measure.

I did notice this morning the griddle gasket is falling apart I was under the impression that this particular gasket (with that wire mesh) should last a long time...not two burning seasons Any idea where I can get one online?

Cheers

 

[webbie]

Corie, I understand 100% from a manufacturers perspective - still, the same applied to my opening my Mac Mini and installing RAM (that machine is ONLY serviceable by techs), but I did it anyway. Ideally the stoves would work. But obviously there is a problem which we see clearly in stuff like the everburn...stoves being designed to pass the tests. Woodstoves are not toasters, and therefore tweaking is sometimes needed....exactly which tweak is another story.

I think what Gulland is getting at are two things:
1. Manufacturers should be aware of this factor when designing stoves, and not "design to the test", but rather compromise and make the stove as friendly as possible in various environments.
2. Manufacturers may want to consider having some form of tweak available afterwards for those "impossible to solve" situations.

As far as warranties, since the manufacturers can usually find an out if they want.....like "its been overfired", etc.....I don't see the big deal there. After all, having ordered a LOT of warranty parts over 20+ years, I never once carefully inspected the stove in question for modifications.

My take - admittedly from a different perspective...that of the end user.

 

[Corie]

I think what Gulland is getting at are two things:
1. Manufacturers should be aware of this factor when designing stoves, and not "design to the test", but rather compromise and make the stove as friendly as possible in various environments.
2. Manufacturers may want to consider having some form of tweak available afterwards for those "impossible to solve" situations.

I agree with what you're saying Craig, but anytime the words "modify the stove" come up, I cringe.

To address 1 & 2 above though, unfortunately you HAVE to design to the test. I'm tweaking a pellet stove for EPA cert. testing right now and I can tell you that what performs on the test bench doesn't perform on the standard hook up. The same is true for woodstoves. We have no choice but to design to the criteria that EPA sets forth, and often times that means compromising (to a certain extent) the performance of the stove for the everyday end user. I don't think personally that's its the manufacturers fault, so much as it's the fault of the testing procedure. There are so many discrepencies between the testing procedures and real world use. I'm sure everyone is aware of them, but the first few that come to mind are: The wood type and loading configuration and the stack draft. I understand the need to standardize the procedure, but I think to a certain extent it has come at a cost to the end user. As we all know, designing to specifications that hardly resemble normal operating conditions is not a good way to work things.

Imagine automobiles were designed such that they HAD to meet a certain MPG rating. Manufacturers could then use gearing to reach those MPG limits, but it would come at the cost of everyday driving performance (poor acceleration). In my mind, it's much the same with woodstove testing. We're designing these stoves to meet that MPG, but don't hardly take into consideration the fact that there are no consumers cutting douglas fir test loads, nailing spacers onto them, crushing the coal bed to tiny pieces and then loading the test crib. I don't know what the solution necessarily is, but I know there is a problem.

Also, if a manufacturer were to develop a "fix" for stoves in heavy drafting installations, this modification would have to pass certification testing as well, to be allowed for installation. Obviously this presents a problem, since we all know that the stack draft during EPA tests is generally at a max of .1" of H20.

 

[Todd]

i still cant figure out how gulland suggested barometric , fluepipe dampers & block of secondary air intake & ignored the MAGIC HEAT extractor which i know cools my stack & regulates the fire rate.

Magic Heat is nothing more than a creosote factory! Why do you keep bringing this up. It cools the exhaust and creates sluggish draft and a dirty burn. Unless you burn an old Non EPA stove or burn your EPA stove very hot all the time you will have a stinky, black gooey creosote filled chimney.

 

[Todd]

I say Gulland is right on. There is no real world test and stoves were set up and tested in a unrealistic lab test to pass EPA standards not Joe Shmoe's house in a different variety of burning situations. Like Corie says, "you have to design to the test" why not modify to the "real world".

 

[cmonSTART]

Ya, that's pretty much what I got from the article with I read it. The tests they use in no way reflect real world conditions, and it would benefit everyone if someone took the time to come up with something better. I guess congress is too busy probing baseball to do something actually useful.

 

[cmonSTART]

And I understand why Corie cringes whenever someone says they've modified their stove. I work in an equipment dealership as a mechanic and I cringe anytime someone says "Ya, I modified ____"

 

[RedRanger]

I recently upgraded my liner,baffle, and just last week (as Todd,who does not live close to a nuclear plant) knows, my door on my older pe insert,and he said I would probably be good for a couple more seasons. Now, to me that is a sigh of relief. I did watch the video,and it makes me feel very uncomfortable upgrading to a epa insert.

Not just for the fact that they are less controlable,but it would probably mean I couldn`t burn as much of that red cedar that I can buy very inexpensively. It already burns hot and fast as it is with my older insert. It seems to me that I would have to cut my 50-50 mix of cedar and fir down to 10-90 so as not to have to worry about a runaway.

Anyway, whoever decided to do these epa tests with a 15` chimney in florida,should be exiled to that location permanently.!!

:grrr: What really ticks me off though, is that sooner or later I am going to have to replace the old gal. Probably in the next 2-4 years. And other than the emmisions being less, what am I gonna gain??

 

[stoveguy2esw]

modifying a unit cannot in any way be advised by a manufacturer for several reasons , most prevelant among these is the word "liability".

other issues would include actually making the issue worse, designing stoves is not a trivial exercise (ask corie if you dont want to take my word for it) ive had customers call up with the "this stove wont heat" with cat stoves and when i ask them about the cat temps , they tell me , "oh i gutted that thing before i even put it in cause they clog up" followed by"by the way , why does this stove plug up my chimney so fast?" oops


i agree that there are some units on the market that may be more complicated to operate than others, but different companies design philosophies differ, one thing does seem to be a constant however few stoves on the market today fail to work in every situation , but most all will fail to work in some. stove manufacturers have to deal with standards which reflect what the stove must be capable of in order to gain certification , they do not run these tests to see how they do in adverse conditions. in order to get a unit to perform the same in the the whole spectrum of conditions and still meet epa standards with the same results is not going to happen, put it this way; a flue that pulls at .05"WC or better should run any unit on the market ,and a properly set up system should meet that, but if it pulls less than that , is that the stoves fault?

 

[Todd]

I recently upgraded my liner,baffle, and just last week (as Todd,who does not live close to a nuclear plant) knows, my door on my older pe insert,and he said I would probably be good for a couple more seasons. Now, to me that is a sigh of relief. I did watch the video,and it makes me feel very uncomfortable upgrading to a epa insert.

Not just for the fact that they are less controlable,but it would probably mean I couldn`t burn as much of that red cedar that I can buy very inexpensively. It already burns hot and fast as it is with my older insert. It seems to me that I would have to cut my 50-50 mix of cedar and fir down to 10-90 so as not to have to worry about a runaway.

Anyway, whoever decided to do these epa tests with a 15` chimney in florida,should be exiled to that location permanently.!!

:grrr: What really ticks me off though, is that sooner or later I am going to have to replace the old gal. Probably in the next 2-4 years. And other than the emmisions being less, what am I gonna gain??

Sonny,
Do yourself a favor when it's time to retire your old gal, replace it with an airtight Woodstock, you won't have to worry about control and you will burn less wood and have a more even clean burn. ;-)

Todd (who doesn't live close to a nuke plant)

 

[Hogwildz]

Um, hmmm, Devils advocate here.
I know it was a home made stove Corie, but didn't that one you made have an air control that could be fully closed?
Was it an advantage at all? Just curious.

 

[Todd]

I say it's a big advantage to have an air control close fully. Not only for draft control but for safety.

 

[BrotherBart]

Not just for the fact that they are less controlable,but it would probably mean I couldn`t burn as much of that red cedar that I can buy very inexpensively. It already burns hot and fast as it is with my older insert. It seems to me that I would have to cut my 50-50 mix of cedar and fir down to 10-90 so as not to have to worry about a runaway.

Anyway, whoever decided to do these epa tests with a 15` chimney in florida,should be exiled to that location permanently.!!

:grrr: What really ticks me off though, is that sooner or later I am going to have to replace the old gal. Probably in the next 2-4 years. And other than the emmisions being less, what am I gonna gain??

Don't buy a new stove. They are evil. They will burn down your house. Keep that old piece of crap. Let it burn down your house. If you are going to burn down your house an old worn out PE insert is the pinnacle of ways to do it.

BB - Who will be starring in Grumpy Old Men III with George aka sonnyinbc. :lol:

 

[RedRanger]

BB-fyi the old gal has promised that she ain`t gonna burn the house down. She has also told me that she ain`t gonna over-fire, cause she says she ain`t capable of that. I didn`t want to hurt her feelings, but I could have told her that.

Movies,glamour and all that,hmm--grumpy men three. Well, I guess I could go for that as long as you played the leading role :lol: don`t think that i could possible do that, although-give me a spoon, and I will sure try and get those summit guys stirred up. Let`s try for a script, like how can we get those guys stirred up again? We both know it doesn`t take much.

By the way, what do you do with those majestic beasts that you take so much time to restore? You can`t possibly be using all of them? Take care,and keep a watchful eye on those yanks!

 

[begreen]

Just read the article in the title by John Gulland.

Just to comment and perhaps start a dialog, please don't modify your air control or change your stove any way to remedy this problem. I really have a hard time agreeing with anyone that suggests this is a solution. I know manufacturers often say do not install barometric or flue dampers or flue top restrictions, BUT please consider using a damper before you consider modifying the air control system of the stove.

Modifying your stove can cause a long list of issues, but the most important one to mention is that the warranty will be voided if this modification is found.

It's great that John published this article. I've thought a lot about the do's and don'ts that are mentioned.

Agreed, I prefer not to modify the stove except perhaps with a valve on the OAK as a safety measure. As one who has almost always had a stack damper, I prefer it because I'm involved with the burn and treat each loading as a unique experience. That means that sometimes I will have the stack damper left open, especially for shorter, hot burns. And sometimes it will be all the way closed, like when the stove is nice an hot and the fire is going with fierce secondaries. In that case I will likely let it get to temp, close the stack damper then moderate the primary air until the secondaries start to waft over the logs. Each load of wood will vary in the wood itself, atmospherics, the way it is loaded and the desired output from the stove. So I say give me control, the more the better.

 

[DriftWood]

Wood Stove control or EPA in the real world?
The Florida Bungalow Syndrome
http://www.gulland.ca/florida_bungalow_syndrome.htm

 

[EddyKilowatt]

Hmmm... I live in a California bungalow with a towering 12' chimney, so I guess I am kind of the beneficiary of the archaic EPA test... but I can feel the pain of anyone trying to run my Avalon into a two-story chimney. My stove has 'self-regulating' secondary air and even into my short stack can be a bit dicey to get the burn rate dialed back with a firebox full of light dry wood. Into twice the stack I can believe it'd be quite a problem.

So I guess I have to agree with John, and the other "modifiers" here. I am a big supporter of the goals of the EPA, but at this point what worked in 1988 clearly needs some fine tuning in 2008. Until the EPA can be freed from the political logjam it's in, I think that some installations are going to need stove or chimney modifications in order to work... and I support the right of those owners to make those modifications.

Eddy

 

[BrotherBart]

Out of control, by design. What a concept.

 

[Michael6268]

I read the article a while ago and believe there was 4 possible remedies listed. Unfortunately I only remember two, of which I think were the best options. The one about closing off some of the flue opening at the cap/termination point and the second one was lessening the secondary air. I think both are very good ideas if you are having a problem with excessive draft and all is well with the stove (gaskets etc). The idea of the restriction on the top of the chimney would be the same as using a top mounted damper and keeping it closed part of the way. I recently had to do this with a "runaway fireplace" and it has worked flawlessly. Lowered wood consumption dramatically and stopped the room/s temps from falling as they did within minutes of lighting a fire. It of course should be observed so that you dont block off too much of the opening and end up with smoke back up. As for modifying the stove, the flue restrictor is in no way a "modification of the stove", and a piece of tin foil over part of the secondary air intake is in "my opinion" only going to "lessen" the amount of heat/flame produced and in no way going to hurt any "quality brand stove". It also would be impossible to prove that the stove was "modified" with the use of a piece of tin foil as anyone with any sense would surely remove it prior to having the stove looked at in the case of a stove failure.

 

[tradergordo]

Corie - just curious from the stove manufacturer's point of view - what is the major difference between putting a damper in your flue vs. putting a "damper" on your stove air intake (an outside air kit flange in many cases)? I think from a practical perspective both accomplish the same thing but a flue damper is not as good a solution for the reasons John mentions in his article and in his interview with Craig (see the podcast).

We have no choice but to design to the criteria that EPA sets forth, and often times that means compromising (to a certain extent) the performance of the stove for the everyday end user. I don't think personally that's its the manufacturers fault, so much as it's the fault of the testing procedure.


... In my mind, it's much the same with woodstove testing. We're designing these stoves to meet that MPG, but don't hardly take into consideration the fact that there are no consumers cutting douglas fir test loads, nailing spacers onto them, crushing the coal bed to tiny pieces and then loading the test crib. I don't know what the solution necessarily is, but I know there is a problem.

Also, if a manufacturer were to develop a "fix" for stoves in heavy drafting installations, this modification would have to pass certification testing as well, to be allowed for installation. Obviously this presents a problem, since we all know that the stack draft during EPA tests is generally at a max of .1" of H20.

This is precisely Gulland's point. The manufacturers do have their hands tied, which is why they need to work with the EPA to come up with a reasonable solution (possible solutions are discussed in the article). But since that's probably not going to happen, you have to at least teach dealers and installers how to deal with the "real world".

 

[begreen]

i still cant figure out how gulland suggested barometric , fluepipe dampers & block of secondary air intake & ignored the MAGIC HEAT extractor which i know cools my stack & regulates the fire rate.

Magic Heat is nothing more than a creosote factory! Why do you keep bringing this up. It cools the exhaust and creates sluggish draft and a dirty burn. Unless you burn an old Non EPA stove or burn your EPA stove very hot all the time you will have a stinky, black gooey creosote filled chimney.

the article dealt with overdrafting/overheating & means to control. cooling the exhaust gas decreases the draft.

Cooling the exhaust gases is the one thing you don't want to do in a stack. Get off the magicheat bandwagon, pook. These devices were not made with modern stoves in mind.

 

[KevinM]

Some sort of emergency stop setting with an interlock to prevent accidental engagement or having to push and hold a button could be useful when things temporarily get out of control. How to implement without it being able to be used to smolder a fire is the hard part.

One part of the problem is that as the exhaust heats up it draws more air which makes it hotter which draws even more air and so on. Some sort of control that is not prone to this runaway. I don't know if a mass flow valve would be appropriate or if it can done without electricity. Or if similar to the tin foil solution a number of smaller openings would create turbulence at higher flow rates which would help moderate the runaway effect.

Kevin.

 

[DriftWood]

This article does make the 18.5 ft stack I am using easier to understand, especially in warm weather. I have seen one over draft even with this short stack. A bad door gasket lead to a hot stove. A emergency all air shut off would have helped that night. I never thought of stuffing foil into the intake to shut it down at the time.

 

[precaud]

There are so many discrepencies between the testing procedures and real world use. I'm sure everyone is aware of them, but the first few that come to mind are: The wood type and loading configuration and the stack draft.

: snip :

We're designing these stoves to meet that MPG, but don't hardly take into consideration the fact that there are no consumers cutting douglas fir test loads, nailing spacers onto them, crushing the coal bed to tiny pieces and then loading the test crib.

Corie, how thick are the spacers between the doug fir layers?

Perhaps you could post a pic of an assembled load?