New User need Stove Advice

[Gooserider]

Goose, I think you have it backwards about pellet stoves and VC.

VC only ever had one pellet stove - and it was designed and built in an "above board" partnership with Harman! It used Harmans patented mechanism and Harman controls, etc. etc.... In fact, I was at the party when they introduced the partnership and the Prez of VC brought Dane onstage and sung his praises.

So as fas as technology transfer, it was from Harman to VC.

On the subject of parts, VC will make parts for you or me if we want them to - or mens room hair dryers or frying pans. They do make a lot of Harmans cast parts and from the looks of things they may provide Harman with the castings from the old VC Pellet stove - the Harman Accentra freestander looks very close to the Reliance (VC pellet)...maybe these are the castings the gentleman was mentioning.

Anyway, my concern is that a thread like this starts with a person looking for some wood stove advice and then turns into the sword fight of who sell who some raw castings. An end user has little use for all this trivia, and in addition to the trivia there is outright speculation about who owns what technology, etc. etc. etc - all this does NO good to a buyer. Heck we won't know for 5 years anyway how good ANY brand new stove is - Let alone the financial viability of all the current players, many of whom are struggling because of last years slow season.

I have no real data on who invented what, and I agree that it isn't all that important at our level. We were told VC developed the technology, but I don't know whether this meant inventing from scratch, or just translating ideas into actual cast parts, or something in between...

Note that I very carefully try to avoid the entire "brand X is better than brand Y" mess with very limited exceptions, like my caution about Harman's (IMHO problematic) dealer-only service policy. Otherwise I try to stay pretty brand neutral unless there are specific reasons to say something pro or con.

On a related matter, I spoke to a long time industry rep at the chimney show yesterday, and he bent my ear telling me how ALL the large corporate stove makers of today have become like most other corporations - pared down to the bone and getting rid of all the older talent. He lamented on how they all have taken a lot of quality OUT of the products, while also treating their employees like "you know what". In short, Chain Saw Al has gotten a hold of the stove biz too. His summary "Craig, NOT wanting to deal with these types of companies is the reason we got into the business in the first place 30 years ago".

Things have changed. However, there are still a number of quality companies that have not fired their entire staffs and replaced them. Companies like Harman still say "Built to a standard, not a price". The PE users here are in love - and of course, woodstock is the original cult stove!

I hope the industry continues to see innovation from individuals and not be totally sucked into the corporate void.

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing - "the corporate void" does have it's issues, but it also results in theoretically lower prices to the consumers - this gives me more free cash to buy different sorts of stuff... If one looks overall at industries, there aren't all that high a percentage in the actual manufacturing world, most are in the supply and distribution chains for stuff made by others, and those chains are much the same whether the item comes from the US or Taiwan... Are people better off if I buy a made in USA item for $500, or the $400 Chinese version, and $100 worth of other stuff? Economics gets tricky...

Innovation by individuals also continues despite that corporate void - at least as long as the government doesn't keep raising the barriers to entry... Note how the corporate void IBM got clobbered in the computer industry, and how Micro$oft is getting clobbered today by the Free Source folks. (and note that essentially EVERY threat to the Free Source movement is from government intervention...)

An interesting story in that regard. At the National Trade Show 2 years ago, one of the large public companies won an award for a certain newly invented stove. At the ceremony, they called their engineering team to the stage...and it was crowded! The same company, which may be the largest in the industry, actually pulled 100% out of the same trade show this year - a real first in the industry and a move that could put a hurting on the trade groups revenue. It's a small example of why it would be nice to have diversity of companies in our industry. In a similar industry - the Hardware Industry - what used to be a good national trade show turned into a trade show given for the benefit of just a few customers....Home Depot, Ace, Etc. - very few little guys on the buyingr or the selling end...either you can sell to HD or you are washed up.

True, but I would counter that the megastores give me more choices of different sorts of products than the "little guys" ever did... We have a True Value hardware store and a Home Despot close to us - I spend about equal amounts at each, possibly going to the TV store more just because it's slightly more convenient... However the TV store is a "mega-store" by the standards of most hardware stores, and offers more choices than most. Even so, I find that I'm more likely to not get what I'm looking for at the TV store than at the Home Despot, just not quite enough to make me skip going to the TV store all together. If I had to pick one to eliminate, I'd drop the TV store easily (and note that TV isn't exactly a "little guy" even if the store is locally owned...)

Gooserider

 

[alfio]

I am NOT going to get into pissing contests about who owns what, or who has better technology, etc. But I will back Elk in saying that we were told on the VC tour that they make some of the cast iron parts for other stove companies, Harman among them.

There was also discussion about pellet stoves where we were told that VC wanted nothing to do with them as their opinion was that they were nothing but warrantee hassles waiting to happen, however they DID make parts for other companies pellet stoves, using designs that VC had developed. We also saw stoves sitting on the VC warehouse floor that had other company names on them....

(Secret personal opinion - I think the real reason for the pissing contest - Elk is just jealous because there is someone else on the board that types worse than he does... %-P :lol: )

Gooserider

TANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT, BUT I NEVER PRETENDED OR CLAIMED TO BE A GOOD TYPIST ! :red:

 

[Gooserider]

I am NOT going to get into pissing contests about who owns what, or who has better technology, etc. But I will back Elk in saying that we were told on the VC tour that they make some of the cast iron parts for other stove companies, Harman among them.

There was also discussion about pellet stoves where we were told that VC wanted nothing to do with them as their opinion was that they were nothing but warrantee hassles waiting to happen, however they DID make parts for other companies pellet stoves, using designs that VC had developed. We also saw stoves sitting on the VC warehouse floor that had other company names on them....

(Secret personal opinion - I think the real reason for the pissing contest - Elk is just jealous because there is someone else on the board that types worse than he does... %-P :lol: )

Gooserider

TANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT, BUT I NEVER PRETENDED OR CLAIMED TO BE A GOOD TYPIST ! :red:

Thats OK - Neither does Elk... :lol: Occasionally we like to tease him about it a bit. Nothing serious and we all value his code knowledge, but sometimes it can be a challenge to translate from the "Elkish". I just thought a bit of light humour might help to ease what was starting to look like an unpleasant argument.

Gooserider

 

[alfio]

I am NOT going to get into pissing contests about who owns what, or who has better technology, etc. But I will back Elk in saying that we were told on the VC tour that they make some of the cast iron parts for other stove companies, Harman among them.

There was also discussion about pellet stoves where we were told that VC wanted nothing to do with them as their opinion was that they were nothing but warrantee hassles waiting to happen, however they DID make parts for other companies pellet stoves, using designs that VC had developed. We also saw stoves sitting on the VC warehouse floor that had other company names on them....

(Secret personal opinion - I think the real reason for the pissing contest - Elk is just jealous because there is someone else on the board that types worse than he does... %-P :lol: )

Gooserider

TANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT, BUT I NEVER PRETENDED OR CLAIMED TO BE A GOOD TYPIST ! :red:

Thats OK - Neither does Elk... :lol: Occasionally we like to tease him about it a bit. Nothing serious and we all value his code knowledge, but sometimes it can be a challenge to translate from the "Elkish". I just thought a bit of light humour might help to ease what was starting to look like an unpleasant argument.

Gooserider

tanks for the incurigement . but i had to defend my coments
elk , gave me no choice . my begest probleme is spelling I cant spell to save my life . i have to
constantly use spell check.

 

[alfio]

I see the two Harman patents, once for their bottom feed pusher block deal (pellet/coal/corn) feed, which is what their stoves use.

Then I see the one with Ferguson, Andors.

Neither shows VC involved.

When it comes to patents, the actual inventors MUST be named, even if someone else pays for it. Example: Harman pays an engineer to help him design and perfect a stove with his ideas....but engineer comes up with some improvements that are in the patented material. So ALL the inventors are named even though Harman gets to make the $$$ off of it - and, or license it at his discretion.

When these threads become pissing matches between Elks daddy (VC) and someone else's daddy, they really degrade quickly into a "he said, she said" - after all, Elk is telling us what a VC engineer who is probably relatively new at the company says, and this is third or fourth hand speculation at the best! I would suggest only repeating what we know for a REAL fact.

Let me repeat this for the 10th time - downdraft combustion systems have been around for HUNDREDS of years, all with the same idea of dragging the smoke back down through the coal bed. Even Franklins original stove was somewhat similar, in that the smoke
Note this:
"In Franklin's original design the opening to the flue (behind the baffles) was in the floor of the stove, requiring the hot exhaust gases to flow downward(!) before going up the chimney."

There have been almost unlimited improvement on this design over the CENTURIES, but it is just plain silly to call the newest marketing schemes innovation.

Here is one from 1976 with slanted grates and downdraft, etc.
4194487

All tarm (natural draft) wood boilers for many decades have used a sloping grate and a downdraft design.
Riteway used this design all through the 70's.

I can show you numerous other examples from the 1979 woodburners directory...etc.

Let's try to just suggest various stoves instead of bashing one and putting others on a pedestal. Sales pitches are best left to dealers and marketing materials.

BTW, a patent covering a downdraft design, etc. does not mean that the patent holder has the rights to a downdraft design.....it means they have the right to the improvement in the design that they patented only! In other words, we could apply for a patent for such an improvement as "a cheaper way to fabricate a stove with a downdraft design" or "light weight stove with downdraft design" and on and on.

Things we hear from other people....are called rumor and speculation. When we use these to back up our own opinions about things, especially when we may have a financial or other interest in those things....well, that is just too obvious.

craig; if i'm not mestaking , Harman has two saprit patends for the feed system, one for the pellet stoves and the pusher blok is for the coal stoker . they're bouth botom feed but one is a scrue and the coal is a pusher . but thats a miner detail I just had to set alk strait on his facts .

 

[webbie]

I didn't read the two patents completely, but you are probably right that Dane has others. I'll check around when I get a chance.

The two patents I saw seemed to be:
1. For the pusher block thingy which feeds fuel to the auger - obviously bottom feed has been around a long time, so that is not patentable, but a certain combo of parts are.
Abstract - 5018455
An improved fuel feed system for a solid particulate fueled stove includes a hopper which supplies fuel to an elevated fuel plate. A pusher block forces fuel pellets from the fuel plate through a drop area and into a trough. The drop area is of sufficient distance to prevent burnback.
(By the way, this patent will soon expire, so it can be used by others in the near future)

2. For a wood stove combustion system - this shows the folly of the patent office - as this design has been used multitudes of times in the past - BUT, it is the exact combination of features that the patent covers.
5413089 - Abstract
A solid fuel burning stove includes a firebox having front side and rear walls, a top and a bottom, and a secondary combustion unit formed from high temperature insulative refractive material mounted on the top and rear wall of the firebox.

If we are really looking for patents relating to the current everburn, we'd have to look at this one which belongs to Ferguson-Andors, and then assigned to VC:
Patent number: 4856491
Abstract
Abstract
A solid fuel heating apparatus including a secondary combustion chamber in gaseous communication with a primary combustion chamber for increasing heating efficiency and for reducing polluting emissions. The secondary combustion chamber is lined with a refractory material. The entrance to the secondary combustion chamber is disposed at the bottom thereof adjacent the grate, and the grate containing the fuel is sloped at an acute angle with respect to the vertical to cause charcoal to accumulate adjacent to the orifice and to cover the entrance orifice of the secondary combustion chamber.

That one is virtually 100% everburn/acclaim.

It's a great design in theory, but here we are almost 20 years after the patent (expiring soon) and the taming of the potential for overheat is still being dealt with. The original acclaim virtually melted down - the improved model worked much better. Now the new ones glowed red hot in the rear and flue collar.

It does show how effective it is - and how difficult it is to design enough heat exchange space and high-temp materials into a compact stove. The patent shows clearly that most surfaces of this stove design need to be heavily insulated. Well, if you insulated most parts of a radiant stove - then where does the heat come out? Sounds like a stupid question, but the answer is that it comes out the back! VC and ferguson knew this, as the Acclaim had mantle clearances more than ANY other stove at the time.

This heat out the back runs 100% contrary to the trend of trying to put stoves closer to the wall, etc.

I suspect we will always have the two clean burn designs - some updraft and some downdraft. Designs like the Harman one are somewhat in the center of both. For my money, it seems as if the downdraft would be best for bigger stoves and designs where clearance was less of a problem (maybe furnaces, built-ins, etc.), while the updraft works for small and medium stoves with simpler design and construction (no bypass needed, etc.)

 

[begreen]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Craig. That helps a lot. So that I understand this, would the Isle Royale then qualify as an updraft hybrid? It has a novel bypass and close clearances, yet is a top loader. Is this system also patented?

 

[webbie]

The manual does not exactly show the mode of operation, but from the parts list it looks as if it is a modified updraft - or even a cross-draft, with relatively extensive heat exchange surfaces in the rear.

I think the closer clearance relates to the amount of built-in shielding that they designed into it. VC often sells shields as options as opposed to building them into stoves.

Look at the enclosed manual page for the Defiant and you will see what I mean about high top and rear temps. The PIPE has to be 30" from the ceiling and almost that much from the rear wall. Notice the rear clearances - and that is with a flue collar shield!

No NFPA here - those pipe clearances are almost double NFPA.

So any freestanding stove is really a compromise as to all these things - clearances, ease of loading, heat radiating directions, etc.