Satisfying

[snobuilder]

Peasant Hearth 2200 working like a tradesman.....In the cold...lol

 

[bholler]

Peasant Hearth 2200 working like a tradesman.....In the cold...lol

View attachment 292109

That is an extremely unsafe install. Please reconsider this

 

[Prof]

That is an extremely unsafe install. Please reconsider this

I assume you are not just talking about the hunks of wood on the top of the stove?

 

[bholler]

I assume you are not just talking about the hunks of wood on the top of the stove?

No it is a stove stuffed into the gutted shell of a zero clearance fireplace.

 

[Supersurvey]

Is that a gas fireplace?

 

[begreen]

It's one of those name 5 things wrong with this picture postings.

 

[bholler]

The hearth is also no where near the required r value. Even if the stoves listing hadn't been voided by modifications made.

 

[snobuilder]

Your concerns are understood. I don't recommend this to anyone without common sense. If it looks too scary, delete it but as you know, there are posts on here about burning in tents....LOL...now that's scary to me (I am sure someone will inform me that it isn't....LOL)

IMO If something hasn't been officially commercially tested, that does not automatically make it unsafe. 99.999999% of things we do everyday have not been scrutinized by testing facility "authorities".

MY testing will continue until March 30. I trust what I do. That's all that matters.
I am here to learn what I can about these touchy EPA instigated stoves even though I have been burning for decades. These are a whole new animal as can be gleaned from how many concerns and fears get posted on here every day. So how safe are they when even if professionally installed they can turn into scary overfires in the blink of an eye as I have read on many many posts on here.


That being said, the former ZC metal surround was never cooler with a fire in it. A new 16 ga. 1" gapped surround was added as well. Chimney is 4 ply. 6/8/10/13.

There ya go boys, a whole bunch a words, tear me up but I believe in innovation and always will.

 

[bholler]

Your concerns are understood. I don't recommend this to anyone without common sense. If it looks too scary, delete it but as you know, there are posts on here about burning in tents....LOL...now that's scary to me (I am sure someone will inform me that it isn't....LOL)

IMO If something hasn't been officially commercially tested, that does not automatically make it unsafe. 99.999999% of things we do everyday have not been scrutinized by testing facility "authorities".

MY testing will continue until March 30. I trust what I do. That's all that matters.
I am here to learn what I can about these touchy EPA instigated stoves even though I have been burning for decades. These are a whole new animal as can be gleaned from how many concerns and fears get posted on here every day. So how safe are they when even if professionally installed they can turn into scary overfires in the blink of an eye as I have read on many many posts on here.


That being said, the former ZC metal surround was never cooler with a fire in it. A new 16 ga. 1" gapped surround was added as well. Chimney is 4 ply. 6/8/10/13.

There ya go boys, a whole bunch a words, tear me up but I believe in innovation and always will.

Clearances have been tested for this unit and you are absolutely nowhere near meeting them. Hearth requirements have been tested for this stove you are no where near meeting them. This is in no way innovation. It is simply ignoring the tested safety standards for the stove the fireplace and the chimney. To me ignoring what absolutely everyone is telling you shouldn't be done because it is extremely unsafe does not show common sense. To me it shows the complete lack of it.

Btw you say you are testing are do you have instrumentation on the combustible material all around that sheet metal box? Surface temps mean absolutely nothing

 

[bert670]

I smell a troll job.

 

[Stinkpickle]

Is that an electrical outlet with something plugged into it in the lower left corner? Like a big fan?

 

[stoveliker]

If you want unbiased opinion, ask your insurance company. They only look at the risks - for them. They are in it for the money. Not the environment, not for the EPA, not stove mfgs, and not the experts/noobs on here. Tell them exactly what you did and they will tell you in a not to be misunderstood way if this is better or worse than it was: your HOI premium.

And, I have the crystal ball. I know what they will tell you.

 

[Prof]

Clearances have been tested for this unit and you are absolutely nowhere near meeting them. Hearth requirements have been tested for this stove you are no where near meeting them. This is in no way innovation. It is simply ignoring the tested safety standards for the stove the fireplace and the chimney. To me ignoring what absolutely everyone is telling you shouldn't be done because it is extremely unsafe does not show common sense. To me it shows the complete lack of it.

Btw you say you are testing are do you have instrumentation on the combustible material all around that sheet metal box? Surface temps mean absolutely nothing

So by clearances, do you include the splits that are sitting on the stovetop while the unit is very actively being fired? Granted, I don't see the more technical violations of common sense that you see, but holy cow!! When my grandfather was well along in his dementia he would dry wood out in the oven of the old cook stove. It didn't have favorable outcomes, as you might suspect. Sitting wood atop a 6-700F surface seems to be further along in that process.

 

[stoveliker]

But, but... he's keeping an eye on things during testing. And we all know that stoves are like children. When you look at them nothing goes wrong. (But when you turn your back or leave the room...)

While nother meaning of babysitting the stove...

 

[snobuilder]

Thinking about moving the stove 10" further into the room. It will take a custom offset.
Does smoke care if it moves from round to rectangle and then back to round as long as volume is equal?
Pic is turned 90 deg.

 

[Gearhead660]

Thinking about moving the stove 10" further into the room. It will take a custom offset.
Does smoke care if it moves from round to rectangle and then back to round as long as volume is equal?
Pic is turned 90 deg.

View attachment 292242

They make adapters for your situation.

304 Insert Offset Adapter

Insert Offset Adapter is made with 24gauge 304 stainless steel.

firesidechimneysupply.com

 

[begreen]

These are a whole new animal as can be gleaned from how many concerns and fears get posted on here every day.

EPA stoves have been here since the mid-1980s, almost 40 years. There are many reasons why people come here. Most new stove issues end up being poorly seasoned wood, improper installation, or operator error. We also get a regular dose of problematic basement installation where the stove is installed in a negative pressure area. Again, that problem is not the stove.

Some stove designs are better for some circumstances than others. That has been true for over a hundred years. Nothing new. In this case it looks like a rear-exit stove would have been a better choice. FWIW, new stove burners often show fears, even when burning in an old smoke dragon. That is a healthy respect for something new and potentially dangerous. Teaching safe burning practices is part and parcel of the daily work here.

 

[begreen]

They make adapters for your situation.

304 Insert Offset Adapter

Insert Offset Adapter is made with 24gauge 304 stainless steel.

firesidechimneysupply.com

These are often a problem and a headache when it comes to cleaning. I see it as a last choice option.

 

[wagne223]

I assume part of your testing involves fans to move heat out from the fireplace and to keep the stove from overheating.
What is the plan if the load is rapidly outgassing and the power goes out?

 

[jalmondale]

Your concerns are understood. I don't recommend this to anyone without common sense. If it looks too scary, delete it but as you know, there are posts on here about burning in tents....LOL...now that's scary to me (I am sure someone will inform me that it isn't....LOL)

IMO If something hasn't been officially commercially tested, that does not automatically make it unsafe. 99.999999% of things we do everyday have not been scrutinized by testing facility "authorities".

MY testing will continue until March 30. I trust what I do. That's all that matters.
I am here to learn what I can about these touchy EPA instigated stoves even though I have been burning for decades. These are a whole new animal as can be gleaned from how many concerns and fears get posted on here every day. So how safe are they when even if professionally installed they can turn into scary overfires in the blink of an eye as I have read on many many posts on here.


That being said, the former ZC metal surround was never cooler with a fire in it. A new 16 ga. 1" gapped surround was added as well. Chimney is 4 ply. 6/8/10/13.

There ya go boys, a whole bunch a words, tear me up but I believe in innovation and always will.

The thing with fire is, it doesn't matter if it "looks" scary, it matters if it *is* scary. If you're burning in a tent in a way that's been tested and confirmed to not cause problems, that's not scary (though if you're burning in a tent in an "innovative" way, that probably is scary). As an engineer, I think it's worth pointing out that what you're doing isn't testing - testing is done in an environment where if something goes wrong, it's not a problem (in fact, in some fields a test that always passes is considered a bad test - you can't know you're properly testing a failure unless the failure actually occurs and the testing apparatus correctly flagged the situation leading to it as a problem). An example of an actual test would be a purpose-built shed with typical combustible materials, installed on a concrete pad in a large metal barn with a sprinkler system overhead and fire extinguishers nearby, with temperature sensors everywhere, and the stove being operated with a variety of types of wood, sizes of fire, air flow rates, etc. Such testing doesn't need to happen for a long time - a month of dedicated testing would likely be enough to tell you if a given installation is going to work out (as long as every combustible surface stayed under 117 through all the tests). In contrast, what you are doing is installing something that hasn't been tested, and you'll find out if it doesn't work when your house burns down. Pyrolysis is an effect that can accumulate over much more than a few months, with no outwardly visible signs.

There is also a huge difference between 'not shown to work' and 'shown not to work' - messing around with the former can be innovation, messing with the latter is not. I'm nowhere near an expert, and even I can tell there are obvious things with this installation that fall into the latter category (the wood on top of the stove being the most obvious, the lack of adequate hearth protection being next).

As far as the safety of EPA stoves (or stoves in general) - while I'm a pretty new member, I haven't seen any posts on here of a properly installed stove causing a house fire. I'm sure it's possible, in that most things are possible (heck, my truck shorted out in a weird way from melting ice yesterday and managed to start itself while sitting in the driveway - I wouldn't have put 'vehicle hotwires itself' very high on my list of 'things that can happen', but here we are), but it seems like actually the stoves are performing safely - even when operated in a way that causes an overfire, there's no structural damage to the house, and often no damage to the stove. That's because these stoves are actually tested, and clearances are specified based on that testing.

 

[stoveliker]

The thing with fire is, it doesn't matter if it "looks" scary, it matters if it *is* scary. If you're burning in a tent in a way that's been tested and confirmed to not cause problems, that's not scary (though if you're burning in a tent in an "innovative" way, that probably is scary). As an engineer, I think it's worth pointing out that what you're doing isn't testing - testing is done in an environment where if something goes wrong, it's not a problem (in fact, in some fields a test that always passes is considered a bad test - you can't know you're properly testing a failure unless the failure actually occurs and the testing apparatus correctly flagged the situation leading to it as a problem). An example of an actual test would be a purpose-built shed with typical combustible materials, installed on a concrete pad in a large metal barn with a sprinkler system overhead and fire extinguishers nearby, with temperature sensors everywhere, and the stove being operated with a variety of types of wood, sizes of fire, air flow rates, etc. Such testing doesn't need to happen for a long time - a month of dedicated testing would likely be enough to tell you if a given installation is going to work out (as long as every combustible surface stayed under 117 through all the tests). In contrast, what you are doing is installing something that hasn't been tested, and you'll find out if it doesn't work when your house burns down. Pyrolysis is an effect that can accumulate over much more than a few months, with no outwardly visible signs.

There is also a huge difference between 'not shown to work' and 'shown not to work' - messing around with the former can be innovation, messing with the latter is not. I'm nowhere near an expert, and even I can tell there are obvious things with this installation that fall into the latter category (the wood on top of the stove being the most obvious, the lack of adequate hearth protection being next).

As far as the safety of EPA stoves (or stoves in general) - while I'm a pretty new member, I haven't seen any posts on here of a properly installed stove causing a house fire. I'm sure it's possible, in that most things are possible (heck, my truck shorted out in a weird way from melting ice yesterday and managed to start itself while sitting in the driveway - I wouldn't have put 'vehicle hotwires itself' very high on my list of 'things that can happen', but here we are), but it seems like actually the stoves are performing safely - even when operated in a way that causes an overfire, there's no structural damage to the house, and often no damage to the stove. That's because these stoves are actually tested, and clearances are specified based on that testing.

Well said.

Properly installed stoves can and do still cause house fires due to improper operation. (Door open, wet wood ->creo -> chimney fire, etc. etc.). Hence the respect begreen talked about is important. (My main example on that is always the chainsaw: some fear/respect is good, as long as it does not make you freeze up.)

 

[snobuilder]

So no knee jerk disapproval was directed towards my offset pipe design ...I will take that as a thumbs up, Thanks fellas.

 

[bholler]

So no knee jerk hate was directed towards my offset pipe design ...I will take that as a thumbs up, Thanks fellas.

Offsets are not a great option. But at times they are the only one. But it won't make your setup any less dangerous

 

[snobuilder]

The thing with fire is, it doesn't matter if it "looks" scary, it matters if it *is* scary. If you're burning in a tent in a way that's been tested and confirmed to not cause problems, that's not scary (though if you're burning in a tent in an "innovative" way, that probably is scary). As an engineer, I think it's worth pointing out that what you're doing isn't testing - testing is done in an environment where if something goes wrong, it's not a problem (in fact, in some fields a test that always passes is considered a bad test - you can't know you're properly testing a failure unless the failure actually occurs and the testing apparatus correctly flagged the situation leading to it as a problem). An example of an actual test would be a purpose-built shed with typical combustible materials, installed on a concrete pad in a large metal barn with a sprinkler system overhead and fire extinguishers nearby, with temperature sensors everywhere, and the stove being operated with a variety of types of wood, sizes of fire, air flow rates, etc. Such testing doesn't need to happen for a long time - a month of dedicated testing would likely be enough to tell you if a given installation is going to work out (as long as every combustible surface stayed under 117 through all the tests). In contrast, what you are doing is installing something that hasn't been tested, and you'll find out if it doesn't work when your house burns down. Pyrolysis is an effect that can accumulate over much more than a few months, with no outwardly visible signs.

There is also a huge difference between 'not shown to work' and 'shown not to work' - messing around with the former can be innovation, messing with the latter is not. I'm nowhere near an expert, and even I can tell there are obvious things with this installation that fall into the latter category (the wood on top of the stove being the most obvious, the lack of adequate hearth protection being next).

As far as the safety of EPA stoves (or stoves in general) - while I'm a pretty new member, I haven't seen any posts on here of a properly installed stove causing a house fire. I'm sure it's possible, in that most things are possible (heck, my truck shorted out in a weird way from melting ice yesterday and managed to start itself while sitting in the driveway - I wouldn't have put 'vehicle hotwires itself' very high on my list of 'things that can happen', but here we are), but it seems like actually the stoves are performing safely - even when operated in a way that causes an overfire, there's no structural damage to the house, and often no damage to the stove. That's because these stoves are actually tested, and clearances are specified based on that testing.

too may bizarre and dramatic assumptions for me to address here. but as I mentioned, what remains of the ZC framework and sheet metal layers (plus the added surround) are showing to be cooler even with the stove running very hot in the cavity so if pyrolysis was to occur in my set up it would have occurred even sooner if the in place ZC was continued to be used as intended.

 

[bholler]

too may bizarre and dramatic assumptions for me to address here. but as I mentioned, what remains of the ZC framework and sheet metal layers (plus the added surround) are showing to be cooler even with the stove running very hot in the cavity so if pyrolysis was to occur in my set up it would have occurred even sooner if the in place ZC was continued to be used as intended.

Again surface temps of that metal means absolutely nothing. You removed most of the structure designed to protect the surrounding combustibles. So you now have absolutely no idea what's going on behind what's left of that fireplace. And your hearth is nowhere near the r value required by your stove manufacturer.

You can try to justify your actions any way you want but it is extremely unsafe.