I've been rethinking this whole subject and haven't come to any conclusions of my own yet.
Without question, overdraft situations exist and have to be (or should be) dealt with... the standard remedy being the manual flue damper.
I'm using one now, but still think I'm sending more heat up the chimney than I should be. I've considered adding a second damper a bit further up the flue from the stove... but frankly, I think they're 'inelegant' to begin with and it seems like there really ort to be a better way.
The baro damper approach has known problems/tradeoffs. The heat reclaimer has known problems/tradeoffs.
Ideally, if an EPA stove is operated properly, there should be little or no creosote deposition except on fire startup and 'cool' reload. At other times, pretty much throughout the burn cycle, there shouldn't be a lot.
If I had an EPA stove and a bulletproof chimney, I'd be tempted to try either of the 'frowned-on' alternatives to the manual damper.
In fact, if there was a way to condense most/all of the creosote in the black pipe immediately above the stove - and prevent (most) deposition above - I would rest easy burning HOT any time I chose to... burn out the lower pipe and go on about my bizness.
My own 'research' into aluminum heat sinks came to a dead end, but I found these images that might fire other folks' imaginations. The heat sink idea - leaving the flue the same brushable ID, unfettered with additional creo catching surfaces - still appeals to me... but I don't have a ready way of testing the theory.
Presumably, the cooling of flue temps would help precipitate creosote and (likely ?) slow the draft itself... presumably.
Simply increasing the ID of the flue immediately above the stove might also slow the draft velocity... but the volume 'moved' (I think) would increase... and the larger pipe could not be readily brushed clean without disassembly.
Oh... just dreamin'.
Peter B.
-----
Without question, overdraft situations exist and have to be (or should be) dealt with... the standard remedy being the manual flue damper.
I'm using one now, but still think I'm sending more heat up the chimney than I should be. I've considered adding a second damper a bit further up the flue from the stove... but frankly, I think they're 'inelegant' to begin with and it seems like there really ort to be a better way.
The baro damper approach has known problems/tradeoffs. The heat reclaimer has known problems/tradeoffs.
Ideally, if an EPA stove is operated properly, there should be little or no creosote deposition except on fire startup and 'cool' reload. At other times, pretty much throughout the burn cycle, there shouldn't be a lot.
If I had an EPA stove and a bulletproof chimney, I'd be tempted to try either of the 'frowned-on' alternatives to the manual damper.
In fact, if there was a way to condense most/all of the creosote in the black pipe immediately above the stove - and prevent (most) deposition above - I would rest easy burning HOT any time I chose to... burn out the lower pipe and go on about my bizness.
My own 'research' into aluminum heat sinks came to a dead end, but I found these images that might fire other folks' imaginations. The heat sink idea - leaving the flue the same brushable ID, unfettered with additional creo catching surfaces - still appeals to me... but I don't have a ready way of testing the theory.
Presumably, the cooling of flue temps would help precipitate creosote and (likely ?) slow the draft itself... presumably.
Simply increasing the ID of the flue immediately above the stove might also slow the draft velocity... but the volume 'moved' (I think) would increase... and the larger pipe could not be readily brushed clean without disassembly.
Oh... just dreamin'.
Peter B.
-----
