Baby Bear circa 1975?

[ellasue]

Before I met my soon-to-be husband Paul, in 1976, he had purchased a brand new Fisher Baby Bear to heat his 600 square foot cabin. Unfortunately, Paul is no longer alive, but his wood stove is. It has heated many of our homes, been stored, been loaned to my best friends, and now is back with me. I have an 800 square foot Victorian home in a small Western Colorado town. For efficient heat, holding a fire though the night and the ability to control the fire, this baby bear is un-comparable. I love it. It works better than any wood stove I have ever owned, and I have burned wood for heat my entire life.

Does anyone know what the concerns were from the EPA regarding early Fisher stoves? This is one hunk of well-made stove. What could possibly be wrong?

 

[coaly]

The EPA required smoke particle size to be reduced over stages ending in 1988. That is when they were forced to cease production. It was not a safety issue. EPA is only emissions.

To make the stoves burn cleaner, they knew a larger vent opening would allow them to burn faster but that would also decrease heat output. Demand for cleaner burning stoves drove the invention of cleaner burning stoves using secondary combustion. Factors at the time simply didn't allow manufactures to compete by using the existing chimneys these older stoves used. Selling a stove that required a smaller insulted chimney than the competition would not have sold. When the secondary combustion stoves were designed, all required a much more efficient chimney system, leveling the playing field. The efficiency of a stove is directly related to the efficiency of the chimney. Now all new stoves have strict chimney requirements, back then they were designed to be able to use an existing larger chimney from a fireplace if needed.

Thanks for sharing your story, every Fisher stove I've picked up from a previous owner has came with an interesting history!

 

[Todd67]

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing your story!

Many of us still heat our homes with Fisher stoves, and many of us have added a baffle plate inside our Fishers to increase efficiency and give a cleaner burn, which means less smoke going up the chimney.

 

[bholler]

The EPA required smoke particle size to be reduced over stages ending in 1988. That is when they were forced to cease production. It was not a safety issue. EPA is only emissions.

To make the stoves burn cleaner, they knew a larger vent opening would allow them to burn faster but that would also decrease heat output. Demand for cleaner burning stoves drove the invention of cleaner burning stoves using secondary combustion. Factors at the time simply didn't allow manufactures to compete by using the existing chimneys these older stoves used. Selling a stove that required a smaller insulted chimney than the competition would not have sold. When the secondary combustion stoves were designed, all required a much more efficient chimney system, leveling the playing field. The efficiency of a stove is directly related to the efficiency of the chimney. Now all new stoves have strict chimney requirements, back then they were designed to be able to use an existing larger chimney from a fireplace if needed.

Thanks for sharing your story, every Fisher stove I've picked up from a previous owner has came with an interesting history!

For the record most new stoves run fine in clay lined chimneys. Most 6" stoves will run fine through a 7x7 clay liner 8" stoves will run on them or 7x11. Yes they run better and are safer with a properly sized insulated liner. But so do old stoves like fishers. Yes one big difference between old ones like fishers and new stoves is emmisions. But along with that came a drastic increase in efficiency. You get much more heat in the home from each peice of wood loaded in the stove. I have burnt lots of new stoves and lots of old ones. And the old stoves can crank out tons of heat in a hurry. They are good for cabins shops etc. But there is no way I would ever think of going back to an old stove to heat my house.