ok it seems like that cold air in there cools the kitchen off.... its just leaches through the whole house... maybe Ill block it off with a plastic tarp or something just to see what happens
new Vapor Fire 100 with very poor heat
- Thread starter gary38532
- 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
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
To add to my post about blocking off the blower with cardboard just for a test...don't leave it like that long...the blower motor needs some air flowing to keep itself cool...
I'm not going to test it I believe you... One last thing I would like too add.... I know it sounds crazy but I swear when there is snow on the roof its easier to heat this house
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Snow is a decent insulator...ever play in a snow fort/igloo as a kid...can get pretty warm in there!
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
It would be some work, but I have heard of people putting 2-3" thick rigid foam insulation panels up on cathedral ceilings to beef up the insulation...not sure how it gets finished though...heck they might make panels specifically for this for all I know...
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
JRHAWK9
Minister of Fire
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
You could fur it out with 2x2s (or whatever size you want) over top of the existing rafters, have it foamed, new drywall over the foam. Furring running perpendicular to the existing framing to break most of the thermal bridging...this is all assuming the existing framing would take the additional weight OK...once you factor in snow load, 2 layers of shingles, etc etc...
Extension boxes over the electrical boxes...not too much trouble there then
I have 2 masonry flues in my house currently, in addition to the Class A that the Kuuma is on. I would have happily demolished them long ago, were not the structure holding up part of the house and the roof. But I do have plans... Flues made of stone and earth are a stone age solution that should have been abandoned long ago.
First off, congratulations on having the hot thread on Hearth! You asked me this question many pages ago, so I feel obliged to respond:
My house was built with a massive central block/faux stone 2 flue central chimney. In addition to this mess, they also put in a
Clayton 1600 on a separate class A Metalbestos flue, at the bottom of a walkout lower floor, upper floor, and vaulted ceiling/partial finished attic scenario. I replaced the Clayton with the Kuuma, so no, I never tried to run it on the masonry flues.
This might get long from here, so if you don't like reading, scroll down - don't complain! What's below is mainly intended as food for thought for the next guy pondering their next move.
My dislike for masonry chimneys stems from the fact that I've lived with both. I currently have problems with the cat stove on my lowest floor that's attached to the masonry. In the past, every masonry chimney I've lived with had problems with draft, durability. or crud buildup. I've never had a problem with a Metalbestos class A flue. I started as an apprentice firefighter at 16, I'm now 55. I've been a paid firefighter, and I've also volunteered a lot of years. I've never seen a class A flue that set a house on fire where somebody didn't do something really stupid. I've seen many a masonry flue setup where it set the house on fire, and yeah, it might have been stupid, but stupid or deteriorated seems to have been incorporated into all the masonry setups I've been called to. I'm going to catch hell for that from the masons, and maybe I deserve it, because I never got called to the ones that were built right. I'm just going to say that there's a lot more leeway to do a masonry chimney wrong, than there is to do a class A wrong, and stainless steel doesn't deteriorate much! Plus a class A is inherently better insulated so it will work better and collect a lot less creosote. I should say my love for class A does not extend to the multi-wall versions that use cold outside air in place of insulation. Insulation= clean. Cold air=creosote and less draft.
If you're rolling with the liner and such, go with it, but at the temps this time of year, I wouldn't think that the properly constructed, even outside chimney you have, would be the problem - if you don't have leaks. I'm lost at where you're at with the liner, and this and that, but I would think that an unlined masonry chimney would work. I've read that your baro damper is now opening, and you don't need more than that. More is just pulling heated air up your chimney - and begs an outside air source.
The change from the Clayton (1600) to the Kuuma (VF100) has been a big plus for me so far. Both were (are) providing not only my space heat, but all of my DHW. I don't know if the Kuuma is up to heating adequately in -40 or more temps, but the Clayton wasn't really up to that alone either. I have a big, leaky, multistory log house. I don't try to fully heat it all, and I prefer to heat the living part of my house to around 56 to 58 f this time of the year. The other approx. 50% of the house comprises work areas or marginally used areas that don't have to be as warm, but constitute insulation. For the last few snowy days (no sun), with temps of around 0 f at night to +10 during the day, I've been running the stove between low to + 2 lines at night, to med+2 lines during the day. Granted, I'm not trying tp get anywhere near 74, and comparisons of different houses and their unique heat losses, are so meaningless.
My impression, so far, is that if I had an unlimited pile of wood, and unlimited time and effort to throw that wood into a box, I would be able to generate more heat with the Clayton 1600 than with the Kuuma. For me, though, slow and steady is winning the race! I have other things to do in the winter than to feed the Clayton every 2 or so hours during the day, and than to get up in the middle of the night to feed the stove with creative wood stacks to hopefully have something burning in the morning. I could have fed the Clayton less frequently, but 2 hours seemed to be what was best for a clean burn that didn't run away either. I was regulating the fire by the amount of wood in the box, rather than limiting air. My Kuuma is heating when I get up in the morning, when my Clayton mostly wasn't. The Clayton 1800, that you removed, I'm sure is capable of quite a bit more heat.
If I (we) wanted the house at 74, I'm sure I could do it this time of year with the Kuuma. I (we) just don't see the need. This time of year, when temps are ranging from -10f to +36f, I'm feeding from 1 1/2 to 3 times a day. It's easier, actually, if it's colder, because stretching out the coals to avoid a cold start, on the warmer days, is more of a pita. I know, if I get behind the heat demand, it's a lot harder to catch up than it was with the Clayton. The Kuuma has a lot more mass, and it just isn't built to run at the draft roaring, chimney glowing, kinda thing, that the Clayton does so well. I can't prove it, yet, but I think the Clayton was wasting at least 1/3 of the wood I put into it.
If you go out and look a the lack of smoke coming from you Kuuma chimney, then consider the difference between touching the stove pipe from the Clayton, and the Kuuma, you'll know that you're working with different system. So far, it seems like setting the stove to what you would want based on the weather 12-24 hours from now is best.
Can't say the switch is going to work for you, but so far it's working for me.
Hi Gary,
First off, congratulations on having the hot thread on Hearth! You asked me this question many pages ago, so I feel obliged to respond:
My house was built with a massive central block/faux stone 2 flue central chimney. In addition to this mess, they also put in a
Clayton 1600 on a separate class A Metalbestos flue, at the bottom of a walkout lower floor, upper floor, and vaulted ceiling/partial finished attic scenario. I replaced the Clayton with the Kuuma, so no, I never tried to run it on the masonry flues.
This might get long from here, so if you don't like reading, scroll down - don't complain! What's below is mainly intended as food for thought for the next guy pondering their next move.
My dislike for masonry chimneys stems from the fact that I've lived with both. I currently have problems with the cat stove on my lowest floor that's attached to the masonry. In the past, every masonry chimney I've lived with had problems with draft, durability. or crud buildup. I've never had a problem with a Metalbestos class A flue. I started as an apprentice firefighter at 16, I'm now 55. I've been a paid firefighter, and I've also volunteered a lot of years. I've never seen a class A flue that set a house on fire where somebody didn't do something really stupid. I've seen many a masonry flue setup where it set the house on fire, and yeah, it might have been stupid, but stupid or deteriorated seems to have been incorporated into all the masonry setups I've been called to. I'm going to catch hell for that from the masons, and maybe I deserve it, because I never got called to the ones that were built right. I'm just going to say that there's a lot more leeway to do a masonry chimney wrong, than there is to do a class A wrong, and stainless steel doesn't deteriorate much! Plus a class A is inherently better insulated so it will work better and collect a lot less creosote. I should say my love for class A does not extend to the multi-wall versions that use cold outside air in place of insulation. Insulation= clean. Cold air=creosote and less draft.
If you're rolling with the liner and such, go with it, but at the temps this time of year, I wouldn't think that the properly constructed, even outside chimney you have, would be the problem - if you don't have leaks. I'm lost at where you're at with the liner, and this and that, but I would think that an unlined masonry chimney would work. I've read that your baro damper is now opening, and you don't need more than that. More is just pulling heated air up your chimney - and begs an outside air source.
The change from the Clayton (1600) to the Kuuma (VF100) has been a big plus for me so far. Both were (are) providing not only my space heat, but all of my DHW. I don't know if the Kuuma is up to heating adequately in -40 or more temps, but the Clayton wasn't really up to that alone either. I have a big, leaky, multistory log house. I don't try to fully heat it all, and I prefer to heat the living part of my house to around 56 to 58 f this time of the year. The other approx. 50% of the house comprises work areas or marginally used areas that don't have to be as warm, but constitute insulation. For the last few snowy days (no sun), with temps of around 0 f at night to +10 during the day, I've been running the stove between low to + 2 lines at night, to med+2 lines during the day. Granted, I'm not trying tp get anywhere near 74, and comparisons of different houses and their unique heat losses, are so meaningless.
My impression, so far, is that if I had an unlimited pile of wood, and unlimited time and effort to throw that wood into a box, I would be able to generate more heat with the Clayton 1600 than with the Kuuma. For me, though, slow and steady is winning the race! I have other things to do in the winter than to feed the Clayton every 2 or so hours during the day, and than to get up in the middle of the night to feed the stove with creative wood stacks to hopefully have something burning in the morning. I could have fed the Clayton less frequently, but 2 hours seemed to be what was best for a clean burn that didn't run away either. I was regulating the fire by the amount of wood in the box, rather than limiting air. My Kuuma is heating when I get up in the morning, when my Clayton mostly wasn't. The Clayton 1800, that you removed, I'm sure is capable of quite a bit more heat.
If I (we) wanted the house at 74, I'm sure I could do it this time of year with the Kuuma. I (we) just don't see the need. This time of year, when temps are ranging from -10f to +36f, I'm feeding from 1 1/2 to 3 times a day. It's easier, actually, if it's colder, because stretching out the coals to avoid a cold start, on the warmer days, is more of a pita. I know, if I get behind the heat demand, it's a lot harder to catch up than it was with the Clayton. The Kuuma has a lot more mass, and it just isn't built to run at the draft roaring, chimney glowing, kinda thing, that the Clayton does so well. I can't prove it, yet, but I think the Clayton was wasting at least 1/3 of the wood I put into it.
If you go out and look a the lack of smoke coming from you Kuuma chimney, then consider the difference between touching the stove pipe from the Clayton, and the Kuuma, you'll know that you're working with different system. So far, it seems like setting the stove to what you would want based on the weather 12-24 hours from now is best.
Can't say the switch is going to work for you, but so far it's working for me.
Last edited:
[I'm not going to test it I believe you... One last thing I would like too add.... I know it sounds crazy but I swear when there is snow on the roof its easier to heat this house
QUOTE="brenndatomu, post: 2397394, member: 28195"]
Snow is a decent insulator...ever play in a snow fort/igloo as a kid...can get pretty warm in there!
[/QUOTE]
My house is mostly cathedral ceilings - and it's DEFINITELY easier to heat once there's a few feet of snow on the roof. It has ridge vents, which once well covered over makes the ice dam problem worse, But the heating gets eaisier. In the perfect world, I'd add more ceiling insulation, along with a roof cupola that isn't subject to being covered over, for the best of both worlds.
Kinda thinking that I might add a cupola that would vent the attic space, plus the area around the flues, when I jackhammer off the masonry chimney that extends above the roofline of my house. It only seems to serve to wick heat from inside my house to out, and to provide a leak prone joint between masonry and wood/shingle roof.
QUOTE="brenndatomu, post: 2397394, member: 28195"]
Snow is a decent insulator...ever play in a snow fort/igloo as a kid...can get pretty warm in there!
[/QUOTE]
My house is mostly cathedral ceilings - and it's DEFINITELY easier to heat once there's a few feet of snow on the roof. It has ridge vents, which once well covered over makes the ice dam problem worse, But the heating gets eaisier. In the perfect world, I'd add more ceiling insulation, along with a roof cupola that isn't subject to being covered over, for the best of both worlds.
Kinda thinking that I might add a cupola that would vent the attic space, plus the area around the flues, when I jackhammer off the masonry chimney that extends above the roofline of my house. It only seems to serve to wick heat from inside my house to out, and to provide a leak prone joint between masonry and wood/shingle roof.
Last edited:
My house is mostly cathedral ceilings - and it's DEFINITELY easier to heat once there's a few feet of snow on the roof. It has ridge vents, which once well covered over makes the ice dam problem worse, But the heating gets eaisier. In the perfect world, I'd add more ceiling insulation, along with a roof cupola that isn't subject to being covered over, for the best of both worlds.
Kinda thinking that I might add a cupola that would vent the attic space, plus the area around the flues, when I jackhammer off the masonry chimney that extends above the roofline of my house. It only seems to serve to wick heat from inside my house to out, and to provide a leak prone joint between masonry and wood/shingle roof.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldnt even be willing to do the work that firewood requires just to keep the house 56. I never filled my clayton every 2 hours. It took a whole wheelbarrow of wood and it would last all day while I was at work for 11 hours but I didn't blow on the fire when I wasn't home. Jan/Feb it would use like 3 wheelbarrows a day. I know that's alot of wood before anyone even says it but the house would hit 77 at times in our coldest weather. The reason why I decided to get rid of it was the wood usage and it dirty the chimney quickly. Cleaning it every two months. It probably would have burned the house down in the end. That being said I'm not trying to do anything sinister to the Lamppas. I just want my stove to work the best it possibly can and there's lots of people on here that know alot more about it then myself. There is alot of stuff the vf100 has done well first and foremost the wood consumption is half of what my clayton was and thats burning on MAX 24/7 and trust me I would not say it if it wasn't true. The stove truly doesn't smoke and anyone with eyes can tell its constructed like a tank compared too the thin walls of my clayton. The scraping of the ashes down the hole and then pulling the hot coals forward is a beautiful system. Never have to worry about making a big mess shoveling ashes out of the stove. I think it's good for this to be here so people like myself will know what they might be geting into with ANY epa furance. (not just the vf100) If they are going from a old school burner like myself. When it comes down to it the old burners hid sins and the new ones don't so you may find out your house isn't as tight as you once thought. One last thing! If you touched the stove pipe on my old clayton you would have been going to the hospital
Last edited:
I got much better results this morning 70 in the house right now at 5am. I pulled the coals forward before bed and then put a single piece of wood on them that was only about 4 inch long so it couldnt coal up in the back of the stove. It kept it from droping through out the night and was ready to be reload when I woke up. I think my biggest problem is the house just is not holding on to heat.
maple1
Minister of Fire
So there's quite a bit of data in the thread. All you other VF guys - do the OP's dT numbers look decent for the setting it's being run at?
Don't think I've seen any flue temps though - would those help too? Or maybe I missed some.
Don't think I've seen any flue temps though - would those help too? Or maybe I missed some.
JRHAWK9
Minister of Fire
I'm trying to remember back to right after I installed it what I was seeing before I started playing around with SP and trying different things. In the middle of the burn I recall consistent plenum temps of around 95°-100°..... my return air temp was probably around 65° as it was getting picked up off the cold concrete basement floor. I remember it being 65° a lot and not changing a whole lot. This was with the blower on low with the Kuuma on minimum burn as well. I believe when I put the Kuuma on high and the blower on high I was still seeing right around the same plenum temps. The only time I would run the blower on high back then was when the Kuuma was also on high. So right around the 30°-35° area is what I believe I used to see with my original, out of the box, install before I made any tweaks to my return/supply air. Between 30° and 40° would be a safe bet.
Fast forward to now with a speed controlled blower running way slower and taking the return air off the basement ceiling and also taking some of the radiant heat off the front face of the Kuuma. My return air (with a fire going), ranges from about 78°-84° and my supply temps range from 115°-120° with the computer on minimum burn. So I'm seeing about a 36°-37° max dT, with the Kuuma on minimum burn. On maximum burn (going off of memory from last winter) I will see max plenum temps around 124° (and for a longer duration)...so 40°-44° max dT. Keep in mind, thanks to the speed controlled blower, the warmer the plenum temps get, the higher the volume of warmer air being sent to the registers will be.
So, IIRC, his dT is similar to what I remember seeing back when my install was like his.
Probably would, however, I've learned that the length and placement of probe can make a big difference in temps. I messed around with placement of mine and just by sliding it out an inch or two can make a 50°+ difference in what it reads. Placing it on the top or bottom of the pipe also makes a difference. I now have mine placed where I found it to be the maximum of the locations and probe depth of which I've tried.
Last edited:
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Gary, forgive my insomniac ramblings - that's never my best work. I agree that it's best that we all post our experiences whatever they may be to help the next person in their decisions, and with their difficulties. Good to hear that you're burning half the wood, just hoping for you that you can find a way to keep enough heat in for this to work when full on winter sets in. I don't really have a feel for how my wood consumption is going to compare yet, but half would be wonderful!
I just wanted to make sure my intentions were clear is all. Thank you for your advice and time
I just got a two and half hour run on c with med settings. My longest one to date. The only thing I did differently was adding a small piece of wood to the front not in the back when my blower shut off. When it shut off again it was ready for more wood and went to c after I reloaded it. I noticed that my draft slowly gets weaker while I sit on c dropping to .04 and then the computer kicked it back up to 1... is that from less heat going up the stack?
JRHAWK9
Minister of Fire
Yes, in a lot of cases your stack temps should continue to drop the longer it's stays on pilot, unless your wood is off-gassing like crazy when you load on a bunch of hot coals (which does happen). Medium setting, you are looking at holding ~1,180°+ temp at the thermocouple in the firebox. Once the temp drops below that 1,180° area the computer opens up the primary air to '1' until it meets that 1,180° again.
Is it possible to up your draft a bit?
I don't think so the most I've been getting is .06 when it's on 1 with tin foil over the BD. The only time it really needs the BD is when it's starting a fire from nothing. I went all out on the chimney I don't know how I can get anymore?
- Status
Similar threads
