Hm, odd placement of the round opening in the top of that firebox then in the video. Looks like a straight shot up.
Ambiance Flair 34 Experience?
- Thread starter Trent Steel
- 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.
Agreed. At first I thought it was for a bypass. Maybe there is a deflector plate above the hole?
Thanks for the responses, everyone, appreciate the help! Yeah it burned much nicer that time, but flue temps are higher than I'd like for the lowest setting. If it means anything, glass temps were roughly 600° at the time, measured by IR thermometer.
I had initially said my chimney was 20ft...then I thought to go actually measure and turns out it's actually closer to 27ft. Still within the 15-35ft the manual calls for, but on the high side.
The round hole in the baffle is for cleaning out the flue, it's fully blocked by what they're calling a "chimney sweeping cap", just a stainless steel disk that sits in place. I've verified it's sitting flush, so there isn't a straight shot up the flue.
One thing I did notice is there's a small bimetallic strip on the side of the primary air control. It looks like it's designed to lift the air restrictor to introduce more air the hotter the stove gets, which seems awfully backwards to me? I've noticed that when my low-setting burns runaway, that device is fully engaged. But when the burns are more in control, it's either not engaged or only partially. This seems to explain the balancing act I feel like I need to do to keep this stove under control. It's only held on with a single nut, so I'm considering trying a burn with it removed. The primary air on low still wouldn't fully close with that gone, so I shouldn't risk smothering the fire. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about:
I had initially said my chimney was 20ft...then I thought to go actually measure and turns out it's actually closer to 27ft. Still within the 15-35ft the manual calls for, but on the high side.
The round hole in the baffle is for cleaning out the flue, it's fully blocked by what they're calling a "chimney sweeping cap", just a stainless steel disk that sits in place. I've verified it's sitting flush, so there isn't a straight shot up the flue.
One thing I did notice is there's a small bimetallic strip on the side of the primary air control. It looks like it's designed to lift the air restrictor to introduce more air the hotter the stove gets, which seems awfully backwards to me? I've noticed that when my low-setting burns runaway, that device is fully engaged. But when the burns are more in control, it's either not engaged or only partially. This seems to explain the balancing act I feel like I need to do to keep this stove under control. It's only held on with a single nut, so I'm considering trying a burn with it removed. The primary air on low still wouldn't fully close with that gone, so I shouldn't risk smothering the fire. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about:
Attachments
![[Hearth.com] Ambiance Flair 34 Experience?](/talk/data/attachments/343/343583-73f05f3e0ba8d671fefb7519f49c5a45.jpg?hash=pW83hZKgLF)
I should add: my flue is smooth flexible single-wall stainless inside a masonry chimney on the exterior of the house. There's a slight bend getting around the old damper, but straight up aside from that.
I also have 7" of rock wool cut to shape around the flue acting as a block-off plate (not as ideal as a steel plate, I know, but better than nothing)
I also have 7" of rock wool cut to shape around the flue acting as a block-off plate (not as ideal as a steel plate, I know, but better than nothing)
My stove has a bimetallic thermostat controlling the primary (only) air - if it opens up more in your system when the stove gets hotter, it's mounted backwards... It should do the opposite.
To be clear, this isn't the main bimetallic strip used for the automatic air control. That one does it job of slowly closing the air off as the stove gets hotter following startup. In the picture above, that's the large strip in the rear. It pushes the air restrictor plate forward as the stove heats up.
What I'm referring to is an additional bimetallic strip installed on top of the air restrictor plate, which lifts the plate slightly the hotter the stove gets, introducing more air. Seems like an odd inclusion in the design
What I'm referring to is an additional bimetallic strip installed on top of the air restrictor plate, which lifts the plate slightly the hotter the stove gets, introducing more air. Seems like an odd inclusion in the design
So I decided I'd give it a shot removing that piece, figured it couldn't hurt. It came off really easy with just a single nut holding it on.
First impression after firing it up yesterday is that this stove is SO much more well behaved and controllable now. I was very easily able to dial in a cruising burn with my thermometer reading mid 400s. The temperature and burn rate are significantly more consistent now as time goes on, no more swings up and down, just a slow drop in temp as things burn down. I haven't tried this with a large load of wood yet, but I still had room to drop the air lower so I'm feeling pretty confident about it. Gonna test a longer burn tonight and I'll report back.
This said, I'm not going to recommend anyone else start modifying their stoves. There could certainly be implications for efficiency, warranty, etc. But you can look at my experience and make your own decision.
First impression after firing it up yesterday is that this stove is SO much more well behaved and controllable now. I was very easily able to dial in a cruising burn with my thermometer reading mid 400s. The temperature and burn rate are significantly more consistent now as time goes on, no more swings up and down, just a slow drop in temp as things burn down. I haven't tried this with a large load of wood yet, but I still had room to drop the air lower so I'm feeling pretty confident about it. Gonna test a longer burn tonight and I'll report back.
This said, I'm not going to recommend anyone else start modifying their stoves. There could certainly be implications for efficiency, warranty, etc. But you can look at my experience and make your own decision.
Last edited:
That's good news. Sometimes innovations work better on the test bench than in the real world where there are lots of variables.
Yeah for sure. Not sure what the intention was with that part.
I just did a burn with the box about 1/3rd full and had visible flames for 3.5 hours. Consistent flue temps in the mid to upper 400s, though mine sits a little low on the flue so it does read higher. I've got a big pile of coals left that'll provide heat for a few more hours. I'm calling this problem solved.
I just did a burn with the box about 1/3rd full and had visible flames for 3.5 hours. Consistent flue temps in the mid to upper 400s, though mine sits a little low on the flue so it does read higher. I've got a big pile of coals left that'll provide heat for a few more hours. I'm calling this problem solved.
Yes, that is a very pleasing sight. There is something to be said for KISS design.
I agree (though I like my simple techology in my stove). But I was talking about the fire itself.
Similar threads
