Why does it seem like the people that has a pre epa wood burning stove, don’t like the new epa wood burning stoves. Is it because they don’t want to season their wood? Is it because they’re stuck in their ways ? Is it because it’s a learning curve.. what’s your input on this ?
Pre epa wood burning stove vs epa wood burning stove!
- Thread starter Itslay90
- 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.
For most it's simply lack of understanding. There honestly is very little difference in running old vs new. And old stoves run like crap on wet wood as well
Yes, yes, and yes.
But for those of us willing to put forth the effort of learning and getting ahead on the wood supply benefit as does the environment and everyone living in it. Still kicking myself that I didn't kick the old smoke dragon to the curb 15 years earlier...
Absolutely! Went from 5-7 cord of mostly hardwood (and not keeping the baseboards from kicking in) to around 4 cord of a mix (about 1 1/2 softwood and 2 1/2 hardwood) and only having the baseboards kicking in in the morning on the coldest windiest nights. Just installed a damper to help with control issues and I am seeing even more effective use of my wood.
Nice, I wanted to add a damper on my wood burning stove, but I’m unsure if I should
I remember renting a cabin with a modified oil drum stove. We tossed wood in there all night trying to get that place warm. That heat just whoosed up the stove pipe so fast. I was non stop splitting bigger pieces and tossing them in to get good flames and heat out of this thing. What a pig.
Also probably wet wood right? Even on a primitive stove like that dry wood matters
I did that with an open fireplace in an uninsulated cabin. It was a cold morning when we woke up, lol.
I wasn't having "healthy" fires on full loads. I had to shut the air all the way down and run on secondaries only for over an hour sometimes 2, then open it up a little. I have 24' total flue height so it was sucking hard. Damper adds one more variable that I am still working on perfecting, but I can see the difference and I'm getting better.
The damper for mine is integral in the stove adapter. Pulled out the old one without, put in the new one with, adjusted the telescoping section because the new one was 2" taller... Same manufacturer and line.
I'd lose draft overnight and have charcoal, few coals, and smoked glass if I left it shut all the way. Flue temps on a full load were getting higher than I'd like (over 900). Didn't want to have to keep starting the overnight fire so early to give so much time to settle down and open up a little. Wasn't holding the heat overnight. Stt was typically 200-250 degrees below flue temp. Shutting all the way I had no primary's, but just the slightest bit open was running too hot.
Now I can keep the flue in the 700-750 range and have 600-650 stt and the heat from the coals in the morning actually gives me usable heat yet.
Now I can keep the flue in the 700-750 range and have 600-650 stt and the heat from the coals in the morning actually gives me usable heat yet.
Ok those are definitely good reasons. I just don't understand why you had to open it up a bit. It's very odd.
I go up 42", then horizontal 42" (slightly pitched), then up 20'. My assumption is it would get up to temperature and be drafting too hard; then as it cooled the horizontal run at some point would inhibit the draft and it wouldn't pull enough air through the air wash and secondary tubes to keep the coals going.
mikey
Burning Hunk
I have a Jotul 602v2 same heat half the wood. Modern stoves all the way.
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
I think back in 2021 I was getting sucked into the "my pre-epa heated better then my new 2020 stove" camp, I seriously was thinking about biting the bullet and finding an old fisher and swapping my stove out to see if the saying held true. That was until a friend who had an injury ran out of wood, I hooked him up with a load that would have lasted my 6 weeks no problem, it lasted him 3 weeks... made my call to stick with technology biased off of that.
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
Poindexter
Minister of Fire
There is no doubt in my mind the modern technology beats the pants off and the tar out of the old tech.
We had a brand spanking new smoke dragon on the farm about the time Carter got elected (1976?) for which selecting selecting wood for overnight burns in the 20-30%MC range was a legitimate strategy. That was in Kentucky. As a young man I was using my grandpa's c.1870 parlor stove for supplemental heat in North Carolina. For the latter I would load dry wood in the morning before work, dry wood in the evening while I was home, and wood split less than 2 months ago for overnight burns.
In Alaska, I have hard data. I ran a c. Y2K EPA cert non cat for a couple years, and then switched to a factory new catalytic stove in 2014. I had a long haired daughter with two laundry baskets of hair product move out the same summer the catalytic stove came in. My wood consumption dropped somewhere between 20-50% between switching stoves and having the daughter move out. With a few more years of data my best guess is changing stoves (from Y2k non cat to 2014 catalytic) is worth about a 30% savings on wood burnt, and my daughter's hair accounted for the rest.
There is a learning curve on the new stoves. The learning is to put down the fire tools and let the new stove do its thing. The new stoves, with dry fuel, actually require less fire management. With smoke dragons, as taught by my grandpa, the loading door would have to be opened every 30 minutes. With my 2014 catalytic stove I open the door every 12 hours to reload for most of the winter, and 3-4 times per day in really cold weather.
Both of the (pre EPA) smoke dragons I have used ran 'better' with dry wood, but neither could do overnight burns with good fuel.
I think moving from moist fuel to dry fuel is a barrier for many. Local to me that means having my fuel for this coming winter split, stacked and top covered in March instead of August. Back east with all those hardwoods it means getting a year ahead and having two years of splits (minimum) stacked and top covered somewhere on the property. And three years is better.
Finding space for 12 cords (4 cords per year average x 3 years) on 2 acres is problematic in the lower 48, @Ashful excepted. I have no idea how much less fuel would be required for samey same BTUs in the envelope for someone jumping from 1976 to 2023 technology. For someone making that kind of jump I think the savings on motrin and doctor visits would be more important the the savings on fuel price.
We had a brand spanking new smoke dragon on the farm about the time Carter got elected (1976?) for which selecting selecting wood for overnight burns in the 20-30%MC range was a legitimate strategy. That was in Kentucky. As a young man I was using my grandpa's c.1870 parlor stove for supplemental heat in North Carolina. For the latter I would load dry wood in the morning before work, dry wood in the evening while I was home, and wood split less than 2 months ago for overnight burns.
In Alaska, I have hard data. I ran a c. Y2K EPA cert non cat for a couple years, and then switched to a factory new catalytic stove in 2014. I had a long haired daughter with two laundry baskets of hair product move out the same summer the catalytic stove came in. My wood consumption dropped somewhere between 20-50% between switching stoves and having the daughter move out. With a few more years of data my best guess is changing stoves (from Y2k non cat to 2014 catalytic) is worth about a 30% savings on wood burnt, and my daughter's hair accounted for the rest.
There is a learning curve on the new stoves. The learning is to put down the fire tools and let the new stove do its thing. The new stoves, with dry fuel, actually require less fire management. With smoke dragons, as taught by my grandpa, the loading door would have to be opened every 30 minutes. With my 2014 catalytic stove I open the door every 12 hours to reload for most of the winter, and 3-4 times per day in really cold weather.
Both of the (pre EPA) smoke dragons I have used ran 'better' with dry wood, but neither could do overnight burns with good fuel.
I think moving from moist fuel to dry fuel is a barrier for many. Local to me that means having my fuel for this coming winter split, stacked and top covered in March instead of August. Back east with all those hardwoods it means getting a year ahead and having two years of splits (minimum) stacked and top covered somewhere on the property. And three years is better.
Finding space for 12 cords (4 cords per year average x 3 years) on 2 acres is problematic in the lower 48, @Ashful excepted. I have no idea how much less fuel would be required for samey same BTUs in the envelope for someone jumping from 1976 to 2023 technology. For someone making that kind of jump I think the savings on motrin and doctor visits would be more important the the savings on fuel price.
Similar threads
