advice for a new Jotul 450 insert owner?
- Thread starter eno33
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
.......look foward to any help I can get!
Echo the dry wood part
Is yours set to be exposed into the room? I have mine fully out into to room to take advantage of more radiant heat. The more of the stove you can see, the more heat you will get from where I see it.
Only burning small splits in mine so far, not cold enough yet to move on to big stuff. I do end up wiping the glass every 2 fires, and haven't had any luck yet with getting good secondary burns, but it is still warm out, and I have a 25 foot 5" liner in an interior chimney, not yet insulated, and a 45 degree elbow right at the connector, all of which decreases my draft somewhat.
Is yours set to be exposed into the room? I have mine fully out into to room to take advantage of more radiant heat. The more of the stove you can see, the more heat you will get from where I see it.
Only burning small splits in mine so far, not cold enough yet to move on to big stuff. I do end up wiping the glass every 2 fires, and haven't had any luck yet with getting good secondary burns, but it is still warm out, and I have a 25 foot 5" liner in an interior chimney, not yet insulated, and a 45 degree elbow right at the connector, all of which decreases my draft somewhat.
IK said:
Are there some more experienced burners out there who can comment on the outside air issue. I recall a lot of discussion on the hazards associated with direct piping of aoutside air to wood stoves/inserts. Here is one such discussion
http://www.woodheat.org/outdoorair/outdoorairmyth.htm
oconnor,
1st, the dangers are unproven and some of the assumptions in this particular discussion in your link are incorrect.
2nd, there are other discussions with high praise for the OAK usage
3rd, there is not a single account of failure of any sort in the state of Washington, where OAK has been mandated by law for some 15 years
4th, I have degrees in mechanical and welding engineering, and a very good understanding of thermodynamics, and have made up my opinion after lots of research
5th, to each - his own.
I am a polite man and offer my opinion when asked. I consider people who act upon others' advice without giving it much thought fools. On the contrary, I respect the ones capable of making their own decisions based on facts.
Cheers!
1st, the dangers are unproven and some of the assumptions in this particular discussion in your link are incorrect.
2nd, there are other discussions with high praise for the OAK usage
3rd, there is not a single account of failure of any sort in the state of Washington, where OAK has been mandated by law for some 15 years
4th, I have degrees in mechanical and welding engineering, and a very good understanding of thermodynamics, and have made up my opinion after lots of research
5th, to each - his own.
I am a polite man and offer my opinion when asked. I consider people who act upon others' advice without giving it much thought fools. On the contrary, I respect the ones capable of making their own decisions based on facts.
Cheers!
This subject comes up a lot. There are a lot of threads here discussing this, some in great depth. For some people an OAK makes a big difference in how their stove works. This can especially be true in tight houses and with some basement installations.
Here's a counterpoint to the woodheat article:
http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hooa.htm
Here's a counterpoint to the woodheat article:
http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hooa.htm
IK
My apologies if my post felt like an insult. Not my intent at all.
Realising the info I am about to write will not be new to you, I will articulate it for ENO33.
The National Building Code in Canada implemented and then reversed the mandatory OAK requirement over a 5 year span in the '90s. It was realized that the problem is actually about make up air, which is dependant on many sources, including:
- other venting sources in your home - clother dryer, bathroom and kitchen exhaust, cenral vacs, and some air exchange systems (I've seen roof turbines that intentionally draw air from livingspaces, more air out the faster they spin in the wind)
- location of the appliance relative to the pressure plane (basement vs 2nd floor)
-etc
In the end, an OAK is a tool to ensure problem free burning, that like all tools has a specific use, and I would not install one unless I had a specific problem that a properly trained (WETT etc) installer had looked at and recommended it, and then only after I brought the other problems up to recommended code (I would provide make up air to my kitchen hood first, for example)
As the C450 manual reminds us all, flow refersal is the issue, and it can happen both inside the house and outside the house should certain pressure situations result.
There is a great, balanced OAK article on this very site https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Outside_Air_Kit_-_Why/
BeGreen - I note the chimneysweeponline article makes a couple of odd statement that may not be relevant to an EPA appliance, like a 500cfm exhaust rate, and the heated air in the house expanding , therefore "so the house becomes positively pressurized, which tends to carry heated air TOWARD all the cracks, helping to distribute the heat throughout the house." In addition to being an odd statement, it would seem to imply that any vent could flow air outside, including an OAK - not a very technically sound article in my opinion.
In the end, it is my opinion, and like our bellybuttons, we each have one.
And no one is going to get my bellybutton!
My apologies if my post felt like an insult. Not my intent at all.
Realising the info I am about to write will not be new to you, I will articulate it for ENO33.
The National Building Code in Canada implemented and then reversed the mandatory OAK requirement over a 5 year span in the '90s. It was realized that the problem is actually about make up air, which is dependant on many sources, including:
- other venting sources in your home - clother dryer, bathroom and kitchen exhaust, cenral vacs, and some air exchange systems (I've seen roof turbines that intentionally draw air from livingspaces, more air out the faster they spin in the wind)
- location of the appliance relative to the pressure plane (basement vs 2nd floor)
-etc
In the end, an OAK is a tool to ensure problem free burning, that like all tools has a specific use, and I would not install one unless I had a specific problem that a properly trained (WETT etc) installer had looked at and recommended it, and then only after I brought the other problems up to recommended code (I would provide make up air to my kitchen hood first, for example)
As the C450 manual reminds us all, flow refersal is the issue, and it can happen both inside the house and outside the house should certain pressure situations result.
There is a great, balanced OAK article on this very site https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Outside_Air_Kit_-_Why/
BeGreen - I note the chimneysweeponline article makes a couple of odd statement that may not be relevant to an EPA appliance, like a 500cfm exhaust rate, and the heated air in the house expanding , therefore "so the house becomes positively pressurized, which tends to carry heated air TOWARD all the cracks, helping to distribute the heat throughout the house." In addition to being an odd statement, it would seem to imply that any vent could flow air outside, including an OAK - not a very technically sound article in my opinion.
In the end, it is my opinion, and like our bellybuttons, we each have one.
And no one is going to get my bellybutton!
- Status
Similar threads
