Rehashing an old thread about burn tubes

[saskwoodburner]

In my internet wanderings, I came across an old thread about the burn tubes on the Englander 17-VL.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/17-vl-secondary-tubes-the-same.73865/

Having previously cleaned my stove a few times, and thinking both tubes were the same, I didn't pay attention to which was which when I reinstalled them. However, I cleaned the stove yesterday and measured the burn tube holes, and was surprised they are different.

What I'm wondering is, how big a difference could it have made in the burning capabilities of the stove? Anyone care to guess why the small holes would go to the back, rather than the front?

 

[mellow]

From what I understand talking to engineers a huge amount of time goes into the size of the holes and placement and how that affects efficiency, so I would put them back to factory original as it is the optimal placement for reburn. It probably wouldn't make a huge difference in the efficiency, meaning you won't burn a load quicker, it will just be a dirtier burn gph wise.

 

[begreen]

Looks like the design is to burn as much as possible toward the back of the stove where it is hottest and do the cleanup as the remaining unburnt gases wrap around the baffle. Member @Corie can shed more light on the decision. He designed the stove.

 

[saskwoodburner]

Looks like the design is to burn as much as possible toward the back of the stove where it is hottest and do the cleanup as the remaining unburnt gases wrap around the baffle. Member @Corie can shed more light on the decision. He designed the stove.

Maybe I'll come up with a thoughtful post and message him.

 

[saskwoodburner]

From what I understand talking to engineers a huge amount of time goes into the size of the holes and placement and how that affects efficiency, so I would put them back to factory original as it is the optimal placement for reburn. It probably wouldn't make a huge difference in the efficiency, meaning you won't burn a load quicker, it will just be a dirtier burn gph wise.

Oh, for sure, I've got the small holes to the back. I might tend to overthink random things sometimes.

 

[Chuck the Canuck]

You want to restrict the amount of air feeding into the first set of tubes (at the back of the stove) so that there will still be enough air flow to blow out of the second set of tubes (at the front of the stove)... if the bigger holes were at the back of the stove most of the secondary air would be fed out of the holes in this set of tubes (because of the larger holes) leaving very little extra air (and very little air velocity remaining) left to travel to the front of the stove... and since you would have smaller holes, and more restriction, now at the front set of tubes that would cause more back-pressure thus meaning that even more secondary air would flow out of the easier to escape large holes at the back of the stove..... or something like that.....