kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
I'm torn here, I have that poster ignored because I hate getting drawn into a circle conversation, but at the same time, my mind is warped a bit and I typically find humor in things like that too.
Number of older stoves vs EPA in U.S.
- Thread starter Max W
- 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.
Mt Bob
Minister of Fire
Well,at least he does not seem to give out dangerous info, like the person that used to be in the pellet forums. "The secluded lonely old man" we used to call him.
Yeah coal is a completely different animal. And there really hasn't been much done with coal stoves for a long time. Probably because at this point the market is very limited. They are pretty common here because we live in an area with lots of coal. But much of the country it isn't cheap and easy to get
Mt Bob
Minister of Fire
Ya,it was back in western MD, anthracite was cheap and easy to get. But then again, I remember people that lived along railroad tracks would send the kids out to pick up coal that had fallen from train cars. My grandad and dad used to convert old basement coal stoves, huge things, into oil burners. Guess I am dating myself,lol. Also popular was converting old open furnaces into piped hot water, and covering up all the upstairs floor vents, installing radiators. Huge old furnaces being covered with thick layers of asbestos, water units installed.
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
Years ago I use to work for a friend that had his own mechanical / boiler company, we did countless conversions of the old stuff to newer systems, it was amazing to see the back yard engineering that went into some of those conversions from coal to oil, usually to steam in our area (circa 1940's & 1950's) and some of those units chugged along just fine, its was a new homeowner that wanted a quieter system (less banging) and more efficiency from oil consumption.
And thats the name of the game, get more bang for the buck, or in this forums case, get the same amount of heat from less wood which directly correlates to cleaning burning and better heat exchange efficiency
When I was a kid grandparent's house were 100% heated with potbelly coal stoves and I miss those days. Some uncle of an uncle ran a coking factory and would drop a truck load off at grandpa's house each year. Those were between sizes of grapefruit and small melons, and a past time of us kids were knocking them into fist sized chucks to toss into stove. To light one of those was a whole-morning affair, going from wood kindling to bituminous to finally anthracite / coke. But boy did those bad boys burn, I happily fall asleep watching those stoves glowing red hot.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Burning 2.5 cords wrong isn’t proof of anything, but if you’re that into comparing size, I’m at 7 cords so far this year.
When one’s experience differs so much from everyone else’s, it takes a uniquely belligerent and foolish individual to not think it may be them, rather than everyone else.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
His whole argument is that EPA stoves are dangerous because there are so many people complaining about overfiring.
Goes against all the "less easy breathing" issues of these stoves as compared to a box with a pipe directly off of it.
Not seeing that just means it is of no further value to try to reason with him.
Goes against all the "less easy breathing" issues of these stoves as compared to a box with a pipe directly off of it.
Not seeing that just means it is of no further value to try to reason with him.
I don't argue. I just post my opinion and then others get upset that I can't fall in line and they create an argument.
You can have the latest and greatest EPA certified stove but they fall way short of extracting the heat readily available from your hard earned wood splits.
Unless you are running air through a plenum and some sort of ductwork to extract all the available btus you can from your stove then you fall short of being a responsible wood fuel user
Twin turbo heat extractors to be installed on the USA Peasant Hearth stove😁
Unless you are running air through a plenum and some sort of ductwork to extract all the available btus you can from your stove then you fall short of being a responsible wood fuel user
Twin turbo heat extractors to be installed on the USA Peasant Hearth stove😁
Last edited:
Or you could save yourself all the trouble of modifying your stove and simply install it within the draft specs and run it properly. When run properly modern stoves are running right at the edge of the condensation point on the exhaust. That means there is no heat left that you can extract without your exhaust being to cool
wrong. Unless you are circulating, you aren't working at getting maximum heat out of your wood.
I will burn "wrong" as long as my 700 Sf unfinished basement, my 650 SF finished lower level and 1500 SF main level are at a comfortable temp level throughout the dwelling on 2.5 cords so far....3 cords likely at the end of March. Not a contest, just responding to your post that said I am doing something wrong.....LOL....OK, I suck at burning wood!
Last edited:
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
Do you have a flue probe thermometer? I'd be curious what the temps are (before and after your circulating top).
I'd be curious whether the impedance wouldget too high with that baffle. Let us know if smoke rolls out when you open the stove?
I'd be curious whether the impedance wouldget too high with that baffle. Let us know if smoke rolls out when you open the stove?
How do you figure that??? If the exhaust coming out can't safly get any cooler how are you going to extract more heat?
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Mt Bob
Minister of Fire
Ya it would seem we have jumped ship from properly running a stove for maximum efficiency and lowest pollution to circulating air in the house. I would bet his new fan setup is for outside of stove,
LOL, well that's a grand statement. If one has not insulated their basement and is dumping up to a third of the heat generated to the outdoors, how is that being "a responsible wood fuel user"?
Heat robbers have been around for a long time. Many have a track record of extracting more heat while greatly increasing the number of creosote deposits in the flue. It's a trade-off. Many stoves manuals specifically ban ducting apparatus placed on the stove, so there is also that to consider. If the stove has a convective lid and blower then adding more can be overkill.
But maybe I am misinterpreting how the system is to be installed. What's the plan? Sounds like a topic for a separate thread and off-topic for this one.
Yes I am sure it is for the outside of the stove. But it looks like they are meant to go on the sides which will be extracting heat directly from the firebox which could seriously effect combustion efficiency. Extracting heat from the top which is where most of the heat exchange happens is best.
By burning the smoke with a catalyst or adding preheated oxygen above the fire silly! (Otherwise known as the secret 4th and 5th ingredient)
Don’t be giving away any trade secrets, I’m trying to sell him a Fisher!
I can coast a whole day or 2 without a fire if I need to as the heat radiates back into my dwelling by the simple fact that I heat in my basement which is the most efficient if you have a basement that you need relatively warm. This thread is about stove efficiency. Burning on the main floor is about the worse efficiency you can accomplish in my view unless it is your only option.
Burning 3 cords in my "smoke dragon" (not) for a nearly 3000 SF dwelling is something I can live with quite nicely.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
I burn/heat from the basement too, and indeed it evens out fluctuations.
But I beg to differ in that it's more efficient than heating from the main floor. You heat a space and you have to keep supplying heat because you loose heat to the outside. If you heat from the basement (rather than keeping it unheated), you just increased the surface area (walls, floor) that contribute to energy losses to the outside. That by definition will make it less efficient. Moreover, heating from the basement generally means that one keeps the basement at a higher temperature than the main floor, meaning increased heat flow thru the envelope to the outside.l, meaning additional energy losses.
There are advantages in doing this (keeping main floor cleaner, more even heat), but efficiency is not one of them.
But I beg to differ in that it's more efficient than heating from the main floor. You heat a space and you have to keep supplying heat because you loose heat to the outside. If you heat from the basement (rather than keeping it unheated), you just increased the surface area (walls, floor) that contribute to energy losses to the outside. That by definition will make it less efficient. Moreover, heating from the basement generally means that one keeps the basement at a higher temperature than the main floor, meaning increased heat flow thru the envelope to the outside.l, meaning additional energy losses.
There are advantages in doing this (keeping main floor cleaner, more even heat), but efficiency is not one of them.
Mt Bob
Minister of Fire
Yes,his statement seems based on 1 factor, his experience. Why would I heat my basement,I rarely go down there for long periods of time.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
The why is sometimes simply a matter of convenience; stove is there, walkout basement, wood mess there.
But it's less efficient. That's the trade off I made.
Similar threads
