Opinions: Englander 30 NCL? Possibly, A Decison....

[TruePatriot]

Hey all,

You may remember my magnum opus, parts 1-10, on which steel stove to get?

Well, I may have come to a decision, namely, to get none of the high-end stoves I was considering, and go with an Englander 30 NCL.

Here's what happened--after leaving the forum in disgust (EDIT: disappointment) for having my patriotism attacked, and being falsely accused of being "pro-litigation" for simply trying to help Tendencies respond to VC's wildly-inappropriate, initial responses to his collapsed insert, I gave up on this heating season. (As a recovering DEFENSE attorney, I am decidely NOT pro-litigation, but I may have reservations about a few member's reading comprehension skills--no offense--just sayin'. )

Apparently, I didn’t really give up on the forum, because here I am again. (Thank you for all your cards and letters—LOL)

Looking for other forum's, I found a post by jtp on another forum, about the new ACC Quad system. Excercising my powers of deduction, I wondered if this might in fact be the same jtp as is on this forum--and it was! I PM’d jtp there, and got some great info—thanks jtp! And I also talked to a factory rep. and got basically the same information as posted by jtp recently in his “Info About Newish ACC from Quadrafire.”

Quadrafire is one of my top 4 choices, but I would REALLY like to see all of these stove mfrs. add thermostatic control to their primary air intakes. I know PE has it, but only on the secondary air.

I queried the Quad factory rep. on this, but the v.mail I got back clearly indicated the new ACC is only a timer, as jtp said, with no bimetallic spring to allow stove temp to play a role in combustion mgmt.

Btw, Quad’s factory rep. opined that it’s quite likely the new ACC system will be offered on the 5700 this fall. It’s already available on the 7100fp (insert) and on the 4300 (free-stander).

But as jtp said (and Corey seemed to agree with):

Yeah, just a wind up timer. It looks like the exact same part they have on the 7100. Its a step in the right direction, maybe they will have something thermostatically controlled on the next go around.

In the learning process of participating in this excellent forum, I have slowly come to the realization that I want thermostatic control of the primary combustion process, as I believe some cat stoves have (Blaze King? VC).

For those not up on my likes and dislikes, please don’t tell me about the few stoves that currently have thermo control--to my knowledge they’re all cast stoves, or have cats. I’m only interested in noncat, steel stoves and again, while PE meets those criteria, the thermo-controlled air on a PE is only to the secondary combustion cycle. (The four brands I'm considering are Quad, PE, Country and Napolean).

I've made attempts to draw out forum members on how much benefit is derived from PE's thermostatic control but, just like Brother Bart's failed attempts to get someone to say at exactly what stove temp. this thermostat opens up secondary combustion air, my efforts did not bear fruit.

So…I think I will wait until the industry catches up with what I (and apparently jtp and Corey) think should be the next step—thermostatically-controlled intake air to the primary burn. To that end, I would love to hear from anyone with insight into the possibility of this becoming a reality?

But Still, I Have No Stove:

So, going back over some of your initial responses, there was some buzz about the Englander 30 NCL. (I’m sorry I can’t remember who actually suggested it, and since my posts are huge, I’m not going to look. I know BB has one, but it wasn’t him.)

Here are my thoughts: that sale price of $399. from Home Depot, for the Englander 30 NCL, a 3.5 cu. ft., EPA-approved, steel-plate stove, seems too good to pass up, in retrospect. (In my defense, I had only just joined this forum a few weeks after that sale and had not had the benefit of an education at the hands of this forum, at that point, to know what I wanted.)

However, I also need a new stove for my upstate cottage....

So I was thinking—buy the 30 NCL, and use it until Napolean, Quad, Country or PE make a steel, noncat stove with thermostatic control over the primary combustion processs. Then, buy that stove for $2-3,000., and “retire” the (cheap by comparison) 30 NCL to the cottage, for a leisurely life that will outlast my own, as it wouldn’t get used all that often.

So…now that I’ve ******-off a certain faction of the forum, and bored the rest with my wordiness, who’s willing to make a suggestion as to where I could still take my Scottish (read “cheap”) *** and pick up an Englander 30 NCL at the 50% discount?

I know there was talk of certain members buying some 30 NCL's in bulk, and I was hoping I could purchase one from said member(s). Or could someone suggest a retailer still trying to unload them at 50% off?

I would drive to most places in NYS or NJ, to accomplish this, and some parts of CT, PA and ?

Also, before I get carried away, I would appreciate if folks would voice their likes, dislikes and actual experiences with the Englander 30 NCL? Thanks again.

This is, obviously, still the best, most informative wood heat forum I’ve found. However, I would have to say that, like a new woodstove, this forum my burn your fingers in ways you failed to anticipate (like dropping it's firebox to the floor, for example). User discretion is advised. :lol:

Sincerely,

Peter

 

[elkimmeg]

Thermostatically-controlled intake air to the primary burn. To

This will not help you, but the new everburn stoves are thematically controlled primary air, but they are all Cast iron at this time. I seems many steel stoves are geared
for budget minded part of the market. Having advanced technology is a chore and cost problem. Ones that do have automatically controlled secondary air, is also elongated smoke paths and pre heated inlet air channels These stoves are either double walled cast parts or molded refractory parts in the interior of the outer frame. As you see that is pretty hard to accomplish using plate steel.

I like your choice of the Englander NC-30. With 3.5 Cu ft firebox size it burns very clean 1.6 GPH . I find that amazing. For it to approach that clean of a burn ,
It must be doing a good job using secondary burn. and input air management..

 

[Todd]

I think that Englander stove is a pretty good bargain. And it sounds like you have a pretty good plan. But you may have to wait longer than you think to get the thermostatic control.

What about the Harman Exception? They have the so called everburn type system and it's steel, but doesn't say anything about air controls on their site.

 

[titan]

The Harman Exception is the "TOP GUN" of woodstoves with its'afterburner' system! I don't like the look of that stove but the AFTERBURNER makes me want one. That's good marketing right there.

 

[TruePatriot]

Todd,

Thank you for this:

I think that Englander stove is a pretty good bargain. And it sounds like you have a pretty good plan. But you may have to wait longer than you think to get the thermostatic control.

What about the Harman Exception? They have the so called everburn type system and it’s steel, but doesn’t say anything about air controls on their site.

Thank you for your opinion re: my plan (better late than never on my part, right? LoL). I hear you, about having to wait longer than I hope to, for thermostatic control. But if I could get 30-NC now, (on sale...) I'd be fairly content to wait, you know?

I actually thought that, with the recently-proven effect of this forum's influence (re: Tendencies' collapsing insert) that perhaps those on this forum with industry-ties and connections (like Elk and the other dealers) could push for thermostatic control of the primary burn cycle, and help make that a reality. Thoughts?

I didn't know a thing about the "everburn" system--actually, I thought that was a V.C. thing, no? I saw an "afterburner" thing on Harman's site--is that what you meant? In fact, I'll make a few comments about Harman, below, to Titan, but thanks for your input. Again, if you see an Englander 30-NC on sale somewhere, I'd really appreciate a heads-up. Thanks again.
.

Titan,

The Harman Exception is the “TOP GUN” of woodstoves with its’afterburner’ system! I don’t like the look of that stove but the AFTERBURNER makes me want one. That’s good marketing right there.

I might agree that it's good marketing, on Harman's part, but Harman has it's share of bad marketing, that more than outweighs the good, in my opinion--this may interest you:

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/6822/

I think, but am not 100% sure, that the "backing plate" that I refer to, which the good Harman dealer (the one who tries not to sell them) said fails, is part of that "afterburner" system. It has the little window, in the back of the stove, that I too thought was so cool, and yet this dealertold me that whole casting fails, and the replacement part does not have the window anymore. Again, as I say in the linked post above, I don't know if all that's true--it's just what one Harman dealertold me.

Plus, I can't see how those little "andirons" in the front would be much fun, when trying to load in large rounds for an overnight burn. Even if they allowed you to slide a 9-incher in, (which I doubt, unless you hold your hand under it--over the coals--load it N-S and then spin it around after clearing the andirons?) I could see myself burning myself on them--I call them "branding irons," not andirons. Now, if they were mounted on the door, they could conceivably still protect the glass, and would not be in the way. But they are most definitely not mounted on the door....

I love the top-loading, though that door is actually too small for the way I like to split some of my wood. I also like that you can grill inside. But after the experiences I had, I will steer clear. Your mileage may vary.

But I do appreciate your input--as I say, two years ago, I too was all about that very stove--and then I tried to buy one. :-/
>

Elk,

Thank you for this:

This will not help you, but the new everburn stoves are thematically controlled primary air, but they are all Cast iron at this time. I seems many steel stoves are geared
for budget minded part of the market. Having advanced technology is a chore and cost problem. Ones that do have automatically controlled secondary air, is also elongated smoke paths and pre heated inlet air channels These stoves are either double walled cast parts or molded refractory parts in the interior of the outer frame. As you see that is pretty hard to accomplish using plate steel.

I like your choice of the Englander NC-30. With 3.5 Cu ft firebox size it burns very clean 1.6 GPH . I find that amazing. For it to approach that clean of a burn ,
It must be doing a good job using secondary burn. and input air management..

Is "everburn" from VC?

Thank you for your opinion on the 30-NC. Again, it was not my idea--someone here suggested it to me, early on, but I thought I wanted one of pricier stoves and now...I think I see the light, as I say--LoL

Yes, that is an impressively-clean burn (1.6 gph) but I don't want to re-launch that whole "a few gm/h either way doesn't matter" debate because, quite honestly, I don't have, and never did have, "a dog in that hunt," to quote Ross Perot. But all things being equal, a cleaner stove is preferable and I agree, Englander must be doing something very right, to get those numbers.

Now, the $64,000 question: any idea where I can find a discounted Englander 30-NC?


Oh--almost forgot: is the only difference between the 30-NCL, 30-NCG and 30-NCP the trim and configuration. I.e., do they stand for "Leg," "Gold" and "Pedestal," respectively?

And to any and all: Any more opinions on the 30-NC?

 

[TruePatriot]

Buster,

Hey--thanks. I think that's an excellent idea.

In fact, I went to Home Depot today, and they found a 30-NCH on file, but out of stock.

Do you (or anyone?) know what the "H" stands for? I can't find it on the Englander website, here: http://www.englanderstoves.com/

I have the HD skew number for the 30 NCH (heats 2,200 sq. feet, just like the other 30-series) but I don't want to go chasing the wrong skew number.

Thanks again!

Peter

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Buster,

Hey--thanks. I think that's an excellent idea.

In fact, I went to Home Depot today, and they found a 30-NCH on file, but out of stock.

Do you (or anyone?) know what the "H" stands for? I can't find it on the Englander website, here: http://www.englanderstoves.com/

I have the HD skew number for the 30 NCH (heats 2,200 sq. feet, just like the other 30-series) but I don't want to go chasing the wrong skew number.

Thanks again!

Peter

hi pete,
ive been watching this thread with some interest over the last couple days, figured i'd jump in now, you asked a few questions that i figured i'd clear up one , the "H" that home depot's 30-nc is listed under is simply for home depot's trim package that they optioned for their stock 30-s. these are leg models as of last season. this coming season we will build and ship all vendors pedistal versions only , BUT each unit will also come with legs inside which can be easily installed after unbolting the pedistal so where ever the unit is purchased if it is built in the 2007 manufacturing year (march an later) it will come with both options available. this option is not legal for use in mobile homes however had to put the disclaimer in there , you can leave the pedistal on and use in mobile homes with outside intake air (code) as for an earlier post you asked what the "l,P and G " stood for , you were right , leg, pedistal, and gold (gold door and legs)

anyway , the other thing i see is the "everburn" "after burn" etc. we call it "expanded burn technology" basically its the secondary burn in our units that ios being referred to. the idea of a thermostatically controlled primary is interesting , but it would be a booger to dial in consistantly with the differences in wood and moisture levels. im not saying it cannot be done, but it would likely be somthing that a "tinkerer" would enjoy but the load it and forget it types may find it too tricky as there would have to be some adjusting the would have to be made to get the unit to work based on wood differences. may be complecated.

hope this is helpful, let me know if you want any more info on the 30's , i build them for a living

 

[elkimmeg]

Mike he wants to know where he can buy one preferably reduced last seasons left over inventory

I did some checking Lowes, Ace and Truevalue Hardware stores sold them, plus Lehmans possibly in your area. You might make some phone calls to see if any are left over inventory

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Mike he wants to know where he can buy one preferably reduced last seasons left over inventory

I did some checking Lowes, Ace and Truevalue Hardware stores sold them, plus Lehmans possibly in your area. You might make some phone calls to see if any are left over inventory

i can try elk, its awfuly late in the spring, but i'll ask one of our account managers to take a peek

to pete I NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE sorry for the caps but i wanted pete to see my question. pm me if ya want pete and if i can dig one out in your area i'll give you a heads up. give me a few days to work on it after you giove me location. its probably in an earlier post but gawd you are longwinded, i'd hate to have to go digging for it, thanks

mike

 

[TruePatriot]

Mike,

You literally made me LOL with this (in bold):

i can try elk, its awfuly late in the spring, but i’ll ask one of our account managers to take a peek
to pete I NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE sorry for the caps but i wanted pete to see my question. pm me if ya want pete and if i can dig one out in your area i’ll give you a heads up. give me a few days to work on it after you giove me location. its probably in an earlier post but gawd you are longwinded, i’d hate to have to go digging for it, thanks
mike

I've tried to be a little less long-winded here. No success yet, but I'm workin' on it.

I live about 30 miles north of NYC, but since I travel extensively in NYS, I would be willing to go most places in several states to pick one up. Western NY is too far, (Buffalo is 7 hours from me) but anywhere in Central or Eastern NY is fine--I routinely travel up to the Canadian border, (up Rts. 17 & 81, north of Syracuse) which is a 6 hour drive I have to make anyway, at times. I have freasons to go to Binghamton (frequently), Albany, Long Island or most places you'd care to send me. (Some people are shameless for a big discount) :red:

Also, I'm close to the CT border, and on the NJ border. And when traveling upstate, parts of PA are close, Scranton, PA being only an hour off of my route.

I really, really appreciate any efforts you could make, on my behalf, to find one of those discounted Englander 30-NC's! (And thanks, Elk, for asking Mike to look into this for me.) :cheese:


Re: Thermostatic Control of the Primary Burn:

I found your comments interesting as well:

. the idea of a thermostatically controlled primary is interesting , but it would be a booger to dial in consistantly with the differences in wood and moisture levels. im not saying it cannot be done, but it would likely be somthing that a “tinkerer” would enjoy but the load it and forget it types may find it too tricky as there would have to be some adjusting the would have to be made to get the unit to work based on wood differences. may be complecated.

Now, no offense, as I'm only a layperson, but I would have thought that the addition of thermostatic control to the primary burn cycle would actually lead to LESS "tinkering" rather than more, despite differences in moisture levels, wood types, etc....

Here are my thoughts as to why--please correct me where I'm wrong: (And please don't think I'm trying to argue with you--not at all! I'm just thrilled to be able to discuss this issue with a real industry expert--my g.f. is tired of this particular discussion--LOL)

As presently designed, a noncat, EPA stove with no thermostatic control will continue to drop it's heat output, (after increasing to a peak temp. as the fresh fuel lights off) over the lifecycle of the burn, as the fuel is consumed.

Currently, any problem with a moisture levels or wood types is either ignored, thus further dropping the output, or the operator can intervene--in effect, he would have to "tinker" with it, to optimize the burn of the wetter wood. Unless he/she was sleeping, in which case, you'd get a less-than-optimum level of output.

However, if the stove had thermostatic control, and you chucked a wetter piece of wood in, causing the output to drop, wouldn't the thermostat then open up, allowing the burn to accelerate, until the output reached the preselected temp. point? And then at this point, the thermostat would close the draft some, to maintain that preselected temp?

I know I haven't explained it well, but what I'm saying is, to a certain extent, the thermostat would in effect "smooth out" the heat output, maintaining it at a higher (operator-selected) level than is possible with a "dumb" stove, that can only run as well as the last adjustment given it by the operator. Wouldn't it?

IOW, say you've got a stove that will routinely burn 8 or even 12 hrs, albeit at a lower output. If a guy wanted the stove to run hard overnight, say as high as 600 degrees, until the fuel was exhausted, he could select that level of output. Of course, this would result in a shorter burn cycle, but what I'm saying is, I'd like to have the stove run hard, for 6 hrs, while I sleep, without having to worry about it overfiring, and I would trade a couple of hours duration for a solid, higher output over a shorter burn.

A thermostat could allow one to run consistently, closer to the do-not-exceed temp., without worrying about the stove "running away" (because the thermostat will close down the primary air, if it goes to, say, 650 degrees) than one can now achieve with a "dumb" stove. Overfuel a "dumb" stove, or leave the air open enough to allow high heat output on the last half of a load of fuel, and the thing will overfire in the ealier stages of the burn cycle, right?

Please explain where I'm mistaken, because I seem to have come to the opposite conclusion from you, i.e., a thermostat would to some extent "automate" the operation of the stove, so that, in effect, the "set it and forget it types" would have LESS "tinkering" to do, not more, IMO.

Mike, I would love it if you guys decided to take a serious look at thermostatic control--you could perhaps drag the rest of the industry into the future, you know? (Though I seem to recall some of the first "airtight" boxes of death from the 1970's having thermostatic control back then. Am I mistaken?)

(In addition building Englander stoves, and finding me a discounted stove--LOL--) Can you shop "thermostic control of the primary burn" around at work and see if there's any interest, or reasons why this wouldn't be "the next step" in opening new markets up to wood heat?

Thanks for your interest, and analysis, not to mention any help you could give me in locating a half-price 30 NC

Sincerely,

Peter

 

[Highbeam]

I will admit to skimming many of your posts Mr. TP but I will agree with you that a thermostatic air control should actually make a stove easier to run without messing with it or tinkering. The thermostat is set to a point (precision not necessary) and then the thermostat opens and closes the air control as necessary to achieve that set temp. Any variations in wood type, moisture, loading, and draft are all ignored since the only parameter that the thermostat sees is temperature. As a "victim" of an occasional runaway stove, I can see the benefit of knowing that the stove will regulate its own temperature. Load it up and walk away. It gets cold when it runs out of fuel and I know that the primary air will be wide open ready to char a new load. I see the value in thermostatic control.

 

[Corie]

Most people do agree with you guys, but the big resistance to thermostatic air control of stoves from what I can see, is that if you involve electricity, most people aren't interested. A system which only uses bimetallic coils could solve that problem, but it make take some thought and design to get a properly functioning system.

Can't promise anything, but perhaps I can mention it when I start working at Englander.

 

[begreen]

Look at the first VC stoves. The thermostatic control on our early Resolute worked like a charm. Bimetallic, simple and effective.

 

[Highbeam]

I also nearly owned a blaze king stove which appeared to have a bimettalic "powered" thermostat.

 

[TruePatriot]

Highbeam:

Feel free to "skim" all you want, if the result is that you can understand and write this well:

I will admit to skimming many of your posts Mr. TP but I will agree with you that a thermostatic air control should actually make a stove easier to run without messing with it or tinkering. The thermostat is set to a point (precision not necessary) and then the thermostat opens and closes the air control as necessary to achieve that set temp. Any variations in wood type, moisture, loading, and draft are all ignored since the only parameter that the thermostat sees is temperature. As a “victim” of an occasional runaway stove, I can see the benefit of knowing that the stove will regulate its own temperature. Load it up and walk away. It gets cold when it runs out of fuel and I know that the primary air will be wide open ready to char a new load. I see the value in thermostatic control.

You know, I don't think "skimreaders" are a problem--it's the nonreaders I find frustrating. I only get frustrated with the (apparent) reading comprehension of those who say I said things I never said, particularly when I've taken great pains to explain that I am NOT advocating whatever is being falsely stuck on me. (For example, when I suggested a number of things Tendencies could say to VC, to AVOID suing them, and a few folks must have seen the word "court," etc...and then suddenly I'm accused of being litigation-happy.) You, OTOH, understood everything I said here--whether you skimmed it or read it, I don't know--or care--I just liked your analysis.

In fact, thank you for putting it better than I could!

I don't know how crazy I am about the "Mr. TP" moniker, though...sounds a little too close to the bathroom, no? "Mister" has never been a fave of mine, either. But, I quibble.

Thanks again for putting it better than I could--let's make this thermostatic control of the primary burn-thing happen!
>

Corie,

Bring it on, my man! And Mike too! If it turns out that Englander has to show the higher-priced "boys" how it's done, then so be it.
And I was only ever considering a bimetallic element--no electricity needed, nor wanted.


BeGreen,

Thank you for confirming what I thought--that thermostatic control was successfully employed "back in the day." This absence of thermostatic control has been bothering me, in the back of my mind, since I undertook my stove search. And it's astounding to me that noboby talks about it, nobody misses it, etc..., especially since it used to be around and "worked like a charm," as you said. My friend with the Mansfield told me his old Riteway box 'o death also had a thermostatic control and threw a ton of heat. Of course, because it was pre-EPA, it ate a ton of wood.

It seems like, once the mfrs. got to the good place we are today, efficiency and burn-time-wise, they were like "Okay, that's good enough. Nobody wants more performance. No one is going to remember that they used to have a stove they could preselect the output on, if they needed a high burn, overnight, without the fear of a runaway stove. They won't miss that feature, now that we've made the stoves more efficient."

But that's not how humans are, and that's not how a market-driven economy works. That's like saying "Okay, yeah...I'll take the Corvette, but take the headers off and put the stock manifolds back on, and lose the tunnel-ram/dual quads. I don't want that extra performance." Right.

Do we have to trade off good features from the past, just because the engineers and designers have corrected past problems like high wood consumption? Why can't we have the best ideas, from past and present, simultaneously?

Furthermore, before someone opines that thermostatic control might somehow negatively impact the efficiency gains of post-EPA stoves, let me ask this: thermostatic control's ability to counter problems like wet wood, bad loading, etc..., would have to result in LOWERED EMISSIONS and higher efficiencies, right?

I'm seeing all positives--what am I missing here?

EDIT: I apologize to engineers and designers--upon further reflection upon my experience in the autobiz, the enthusiasm to innovate is never lacking in engineers (I never actually knew a designer, but I'll assume they share this quality with engineers). Rather, decisions to kill product features seem to come from three areas: a) Accounting and b) Upper Managment and c) Legal. I think it has to do with the respective parties genetic code--where engineers (and designers?) have a gene that says "More Power!", the Bean Counters, Empty Suits and Gasbags have a gene which whispers "Be risk averse--it's safer."

So again, I was wrong to blame the engineers and designers--I think I'm just envious, that they have all the fun and that without a science background (I was Liberal Arts) I'll never be more than a "marketing hack." But at least I'm long-winded, right? LOL

Peter

 

[elkimmeg]

Tp the whether primary or secondaey it makes little difference, In fact I like the idea it is the secondary controled


I had a Resolute Acclaim, not a bad stove, without the them controled air. I fiddled and dittled with tha air contrils to get it right and fiddled and dittled

Then I pickup the used cat Intrepid. I could not believe how easy it was to run that stove. After the initial fiddling it was set and forget. ITs like whow! I can't believe it is out preforming the Larger Resolute Accclaim,but it was. Once the burn cycle is established, meaning most of the moisture is driven off, I engage the cat and let the w automatic secondary air control take over.

If I want to burn at a higher rate,I just mudge the primary air open a bit. At one point, the a 450 surface steel/ castiron stove will emits x amount of heat, but at 600 degrees it emits 100% more heat than at 450. So cold night its 550 to 650 and yes Burn times are shorter. I easilly can hold 500 degrees 8 hours

I like to judge stove preformance in these terms measured by stove top thermos. I call productive heat anything above 400 stove top themp

Back to this intrepid which I believe to be one of the best smaller room areas heater there is per preformance and fire box size 1,25 cu ft.

I was able to get a real good productive heat range up to 6 hours. This was amazing! I never owned a cat combustor stove before and believed the BS about extra controls and harder to manitain, this turned out to be the opposite. The stove looked so small sitting there it would never heat this area.I replaced a mid 80's plate steel stove much larger that ate wood.

The damn stove preformed and suprised the heck out of me. It was out preforming the larger stove on my main level.

It is at this point I started measuring my flue exit height and figured out that I could replace the Resolute Acclaim with the Cat Encore. The Encore had a larger fire box and rater 18% higher output. In my travels I came accrost a used forest greed Encore 1999 used only 2 seasons in real good shape I bought it for $500 I went threw the stove cleanned up replaced sone gaskets, but the original cat combustor was in great shape. I wish five years earlier, I had not been talked out of purchasing that cat stove by the dealer. End results from a full season burning Before Thanksgiving I removed the Zone valve wire so that it would not kick on. I have yet to replace that wire. This is the first time 100% of that zone heat was provided by only wood heat. 30 years and I finally got it right. Again it was getting the burn cycle to the second phase charing of the wood damper down which engages the cat and forget it till reloading. When I got up in the morning, Usuually the zone lost only 2 degrees. For 30 years I got up at night and loaded stoves. and they would die out before I returnd home from work and enter a colder home. I only wish my vent height did not prevent me from purchasing a cat defiant. In genneral we were warmer that any other winter and My wife got into the act of loading and controling the stove. She never got into the fiddleing and diddling but now it was easy the closest to set and forget I ever experienced and even heat range. Another thing occured it burned so much cleaner. All that cherry wood with the nice aroma ,not only was there no smoke present, but the cat combustor burned the smoke so completely, I could not smell the Cherry

So True Pat I don't know if this answers your specific questions but this is how automatically controled air worked for me

Two other factors are a must for sucess,dry wood. Mine is seasoned 2 years before usage and learning how to load the stove. The wood supply is cut and split to take advantage of the fire box configeration. The encore takes up to 20" splits. Overnight I use larger splits. All stoves require experimentation and a learning curb to get the most out of them

 

[TruePatriot]

I just wanted to recycle this apology here, in case anyone missed it, as I added it later:


EDIT: I apologize to engineers and designers--upon further reflection upon my experience in the autobiz, the enthusiasm to innovate is never lacking in engineers (I never actually knew a designer, but I’ll assume they share this quality with engineers). Rather, decisions to kill product features seem to come from three areas: a) Accounting and b) Upper Managment and c) Legal. I think it has to do with the respective parties genetic code--where engineers (and designers?) have a gene that says “More Power!”, the Bean Counters, Empty Suits and Gasbags have a gene which whispers “Be risk averse--it’s safer.”

So again, I was wrong to blame the engineers and designers--I think I’m just envious, that they have all the fun and that without a science background (I was Liberal Arts) I’ll never be more than a “marketing hack.” But at least I’m long-winded, right? LOL


Elk,

Thank you for sharing your real-world experiences with thermostatic draft control. I was just kind of modelling this "in my head," (like Nikola Tesla? LOL) and I really appreciate learning about your actual findings.

I would like to question your feeling that about this, however:

Tp the whether primary or secondaey it makes little difference, In fact I like the idea it is the secondary controled

Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but I just naturally assumed that thermostatic control of the primary air would have a greater, and more responsive, effect upon the stove's operation, than would automating the secondary air.

Here's why: during some stages of the primary burn, there is no secondary combustion, right? If so, there would be no real effect of closing or opening the secondary air draft, unless of course the primary combustion could access that secondary air? Now, I'm considering stoves that do their secondary combustion up at the top of the firebox, feeding secondary air in through tubes, like the Quads, Countries, etc....

Would that secondary air even get down under the primary combustion, to affect it? Again, this is assuming we're at a stage of the fire where there is no secondary combustion, at the moment. I would think the secondary air, if it is introduced near the top of the combustion chamber (as I believe it is in most stoves) might just escape up the flue, when secondary combustion is down.

And, even when secondary combustion IS in play, I still believe that the greater consumer of air is the primary process, so to have the greatest impact on the operation of the stove, that's the beast we really want to "bring to heel," via a bimetallic thermostat, right?

My idea was that thermostatic control of the primary air would in effect give the user a "throttle," acutally, an "auto-throttle," which the stove's thermostat would use to "roll in" more air, to accelerate--automatically-a fire that was smoldering due to wet wood, poor loading, or a fuel load that was more than half-consumed, say in the middle of the night.

In other words, if you've got a fuel cycle that's already down on output, say 4 hours into an overnight burn, and you're losing primary combustion output (due to reduced fuel, or poor loading/a need to stir coals around, etc...) I would think you'd want the thermostat to feed primary air in, to "wake up" the primary burn.

By the same token, once that primary burn is rollicking again, it seems you'd definitely want that thermostat to SHUT DOWN the primary air, to prevent a "runaway stove." Remember, my goal here is to allow the stove to run hotter, closer to the "do not exceed temp.," overnight, with thermostatic control to prevent an overfire.

Since I feel the danger from overfire is MUCH higher from the primary cycle, I would think that if the thermostat is to provide the benefits I'm suggesting (1. less "peaks and valleys" in output, 2. higher output overnight and 3. Less "fiddling and diddling" required) that it must be on the primary combustion cycle.

To my thinking, one would get the most responsive, most dramatic, automatic control by having the thermostat be on the primary air, as I've tried (badly) to explain.

Do you, or anyone else, have any thoughts on this?

But Elk, don't let me take away from your excellent post--I really appreciate hearing your thoughtful, in-depth experiences with thermostatic control--clearly, it made a believer out of you, and I hope that, with more such information, we can "pull" the industry toward offering it on these already-excellent, post-EPA stoves, and make them even better heaters, while at the same time allowing them to require less fiddling while providing hotter, unattended (overnight) burns.

Thanks,

Peter

Englander--taking wood heat to the next level--automatically.

WTF? Where'd that come from? LOL :lol:

 

[elkimmeg]

Again there are a few keys to sucesfull burning dry wood and loading and Stove/fire management. Again it takes experimentation and learning how to make adjustments Once you have that good bed of coals it is possible to load a stove and directly engage the cat combust. Stove design also plays a part the smoke path is down drafted over the hot bed of coals some gets burned off but gets super heated before it enters the secondary combustion chamber. The secondary air is routed there channels behind the inner heat plates and outer case it too gets super heated and enters the secondary combustion chamber In this case at 500 degrees ,the cat combust ignites any smoke particulate and combust almost all that is present. Really you want smoke to combust.. Laws of physics take over here, that things in motion tend to stay in motion. Meaning once the combustor combust ,it want to continue combusting.
the secondary air is controled with a bimetalic like spring mechanism attached to a temperature probe that will automatically open or close the air as needed to extend the burn.

One still has control of the primary air say I want to go from 550 to over 600 on those cold night after the initial setting. I find it settles at 550 I can open the primary air a bit to achieve 600 degrees for as long as the load can support it

Now the everburn system is configured the same way but without a cat in the secondary combustion chamber The down draft principal or horizontal burn method is the same. But this system employs refractory ceramic type shoe and injests air before the smoke enter into the secondary combustion chamber. Smoke will burn over 1000 degrees and again once the burn is established it tends to self perpetuate its self. This secondary combustion chamber can reach 1700 degreees meaning almost complete re-combustion of smoke particulate. The major difference is the thematically controls is connected to the primary air so here are two instances of achieving secondary combustion using both primary or secondary air to achieve it.

I wish I had that NC-30 to examine how it achieves secondary combustion and look into how it achieves 1.6 gph. At that number it has to have a a very efficiency secondary burn. Now the top tube design works with an air feed and heat. The air oxygen into a super hot environment ignites the smoke particulate. As the stove burns, naturally les smoke is given off in the latter stages of the burn cycle and less secondary combustion is needed This design is inter-mitten more on then off and on again the key element is reaching over 1000 degrees. For years I have experience single air control some also control the damper opening as well. A well designed air flow and smoke path and now air tubs has proven very successful and efficient at prolong clean burning
The PE sumit added the thematically controls probably explains their incredible long burns. But a well designed air flow and smoke path and the ability to hold in the smoke long enough to combust, it seems to work rather well. Which technology is better I don't know. I can only say the automatic air control extends the productive heat range.. Many posters here are getting good productive heat ranges using both technologies part of it is user intelligence and dry wood


Ther are times where my wood is dry and I have a good bed of coals my primary air is shut down completely and my stove is being controled by the automation of the seconday air and this is happening at 600 degrees Pretty sweet. And people are told not to buy cat stoves that they are so hard to use. It dosen't get any easier that this

Did I ever mention Top loading?

 

[Corie]

I can't even handle the length of these posts.

 

[elkimmeg]

I can't even handle the length of these posts.

Corie you could be on the end of the phone line with TP Explaining how to work the NC-30

BTW how does the Corie special work?

 

[Corie]

Negative, customer service would be on the other end of the phone with him (read, Mike H.) More than likely I'd be out in the burn lab.


The corie special I and II both have tube secondary, no thermostatic control on the Corie I, still weighing options for the final design of the next stove.



We'll see. I might just save a whole bunch of these ideas and come out with an Englander that has:


Top Loading
Whorehouse Red
Thermostatic Air Control
Hidden Soapstone Panels
Remote Control Heat Adjustment

 

[titan]

Sign me up for that stove; oh and can you get the secondary flames to change color with my mood?

 

[Corie]

Shoot we'll get the stove to change your underpants with your mood.

 

[titan]

Are you sure you aren't working for P.E.?

 

[BrotherBart]

Sign me up for that stove; oh and can you get the secondary flames to change color with my mood?

Nope. The guy that has actually bought one their stoves, at full price, gets to try the next new improved version out first.

And I am just waiting 'til it gets discovered that on the 30-NC the primary air control control controls secondary also. That ought to complicate the thermo controlled design just a tad.