Shelter SF1000E Relocation & Controls Project

  • 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.

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,780
Wisconsin Dells, WI
I read that memorandum right from the EPA in the first post from the "MTG" measurement technology group leader from the EPA, and in that one they are referring to the tests performed on October 24, 2019. It's an illuminating memo to read in a sort of academic, kind of boring, yet interesting way! https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachm...cerns_mtg-review-of-lab-responses-pdf.262370/ No wonder lampmfg was none too happy...

yep, that's the one I have too....which I did not want to share. I totally forgot Lamppa shared it.
 

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
6,751
NE Ohio
Just seen this ad on FBMP...love the description ;lol

1637449100947.png
 

NorMi

Member
Nov 18, 2021
110
Northern LP, MI
I was just looking at what the prices have done too on the new ones - $2200! The Heat Commander, which wasn't out when I bought mine I don't think, is now listing at $2649. With the tax credits that's $1628 and $1960 respectively. Good time to be a wood burner if anyone is in the market! Although, here's another fishy thing to investigate, HY-C certifies that the SF1000E is 75% for the tax credit, they got a certificate and everything: https://www.hy-c.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TaxCreditCertificate.SF1000E.2560px.website_3.21.jpg

The main problem with that is in the EPA database and on the test report, the overall stack loss efficiency of this furnace is only 70%.... The Heat Commander is 77% and the Kuuma 79%... I think someone's got some explaining to do! Without the tax credit, the Shelter/FC is not cheapest anymore, and being less efficiency, it would be a dead stick in the marketplace at the new, higher pricetag. The only exception is if you are installing it in a shop/outbuilding, then the tax credit is irrelevant and it's still the cheapest one, which IMO makes sense for a shop most of the time.
 

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
6,751
NE Ohio
The only exception is if you are installing it in a shop/outbuilding, then the tax credit is irrelevant
Why is that? Nobody comes around and inspects where you put it...or if you even installed it for that matter.
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,780
Wisconsin Dells, WI
I'd also like to know, when they re-tested, and for the Cat I burn, if they did so w/o the combustion air blower on (no call for heat). The test requires it to burn at the lowest possible BTU output, which would be a loaded firebox burning with no call for heat by a thermostat....meaning no combustion blower.

stack loss efficiency of this furnace is only 70%

Interesting. Does the HHV have to be above 75% to qualify for the tax break?


EDIT.

1637454398756.png



1637454458919.png


WTF?! ;lol
 
Last edited:

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
6,751
NE Ohio
Does the HHV have to be above 75% to qualify for the tax break?
Yes.
 

NorMi

Member
Nov 18, 2021
110
Northern LP, MI
Why is that? Nobody comes around and inspects where you put it...or if you even installed it for that matter.
True, but if you're willing to commit tax fraud in that $ amount, I think it makes it enough dough for felony tax fraud, and although it's easy since no one likely checks on it, you could just do one more felony and get any stove you want for free! 😅
 

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
6,751
NE Ohio
True, but if you're willing to commit tax fraud in that $ amount, I think it makes it enough dough for felony tax fraud, and although it's easy since no one likely checks on it, you could just do one more felony and get any stove you want for free! 😅
Accountant...or tax attorney, maybe an IRS agent?! !!! ;) ;lol
 
  • Wow
Reactions: NorMi

NorMi

Member
Nov 18, 2021
110
Northern LP, MI
I'd also like to know, when they re-tested, and for the Cat I burn, if they did so w/o the combustion air blower on (no call for heat). The test requires it to burn at the lowest possible BTU output, which would be a loaded firebox burning with no call for heat by a thermostat....meaning no combustion blower.
I looked through this giant file, and they do show when the simulated thermostat comes in on the tests using a "green" color and when the thermostat is off using a "salmon" color on the test charts for each category. Cat 4 is the exception it all shows salmon or off, but the cat 4 written test procedure has the draft blower locked on the whole time, so the simulated thermostat is probably just not used at all on that test. On Cat 3 they kicked it on at 54 minutes, and on the cat 2 test at 254 minutes. On the cat 1 test it would seem detrimental to the test to run draft too much, as getting the furnace under the 35% BTU is tough enough - turning on the draft too much would make it blow its load too fast so to speak and push the average BTU too high. They burned 37 lbs. on the cat 1 test in 6 1/2 hours, which in my experience on an idled load that size is probably within reason, maybe a little faster than what I see when I'm trying to stretch out the burn time. They run the draft for 20 minutes to start the fire on cat 1 according to the test procedure, which is about right to get the furnace to temperature and would be how it should be used by an end user per the directions, and then operated from there at the lowest rate. The first and longer of the two cat 1 tests as required by the ATM the thermostat table coloring shows an engagement at minute 381 out of a 394 minute test. The flue temperature data doesn't reflect any increase though, so it might just be a coloring error like on the cat4 test when it shows salmon/off when green/on would be more accurate to display - maybe on those two tests they just didn't pay attention to the colors in the spreadsheet and left them at whatever they were on the last data entries since the simulated stat was not in the circuit...?

Cat 1 test procedures:

• Test Load: approximately 37 lbs. Red Oak Cordwood.
• Place test load North/South.
• Place test load to the rear of firebox.
• Draft inducer engaged at start of test.
• Position Fuel and Ash doors open approximately ½” open at start of test.
• Leave Fuel and Ash doors open for approximately 5 minutes or a flue temperature of 850* f
whichever occurs first, then close.
Disengage draft inducer at 20 minutes from start of test.
The Draft Inducer shall remain disengaged for remainder of test.
• Reference ATM issued to HY-C on July 26th 2018 for operating to Cat. I
Category I- “Operate at the lowest delivered output that the unit is able to operate at, which
may be a higher delivered output average BTU than the test method allows. Using two test runs
at this low output (averaging the two runs), operating the heater at the intended lowest “real
world” operational mode
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,780
Wisconsin Dells, WI
they do show when the simulated thermostat comes in on the tests using a "green" color and when the thermostat is off using a "salmon" color on the test charts for each category.

Where do they show this? I can't seem to find it.
 

NorMi

Member
Nov 18, 2021
110
Northern LP, MI
Cat 4 table you're looking for is on pg. 202 in the table header you can see the two colors labeled as "Simulated Thermostat ON" or "OFF", the column that is shaded with the color indicator is the last column in the table, labeled 'Average Heat Out BTU/hr'. Cat 3 same table starts on pg 229. Cat 2 table starts on pg. 263. Cat 1 on pg. 303. The simulated thermostat should not have been used for cat 1 or 4 as long as Intertek followed the written procedures, as the draft blower is under manual/timed control on those tests so the colors should be meaningless/unused on those test tables.
 

SpaceBus

Minister of Fire
Nov 18, 2018
6,441
Downeast Maine
I like the idea of the mobile furnace shed. The idea of using it on your house is less attractive. For agricultural projects it could be feasible, but I would restrict it to greenhouses. It would be devastating to lose a barn full of livestock, if that's what you are using the heat for.

There are plenty of threads for adding automation and fine control to the older "analog" Tundra furnaces. If you are good at programming maybe you could rig a Raspberry Pi to read an O2 sensor and control the draft/shutters for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorMi

NorMi

Member
Nov 18, 2021
110
Northern LP, MI
In a house it's not going to be able to do what a properly ducted install would do, that's for sure. Mainly it could only supplement without full duct runs. There would/should be no more fire risk than having a solid fuel appliance in any structure in general, which is minimal risk with proper operation/ maintenance/etc. The initial design I have drawn up basically fits up to any 36x80" doorway, could be used on almost any structure with a ground level man door as a backup/supplement/emergency heat source. It should be able to be moved while in operation without any significant trouble, fans/controls on a UPS already. Just pick it up with the forks and put it wherever.

For controls, I ordered a bunch of k type thermocouples/boards, relays, and low temperature 1-wire probes, pressure sensors. For the draft fan which is a shaded pole motor, I ordered a triac module. I have a bunch of arduino/esp8266 and esp32's kicking around for the MCU portion of the controls. 😁
 

Wood Momma

New Member
Jan 16, 2022
1
Pennsylvania
I've had this furnace in the basement of my bank barn since September last year and I'm starting a new, crazy project to basically turn it into a forklift-mobile outdoor hot air furnace shed, as I now have a use/need for a wood furnace in 2-3 locations on the property - but only ever need one location heated at a time. The current install is fairly basic, goes out through the 12" cinder block wall in the picture to a 15' triple wall SS duravent stack that terminates at the eave on the barn. In this location it's nearly always burning at the cat 3-4 rate, and in one of the new locations (house) it may be throttled down more frequently due to the tighter/smaller building envelope, so I've been testing the cat. 1-2 performance and the burn times at lower rates this week. I tried to do some reading on this furnace but it seems no one has really posted about the phase 2 "E" model to any major degree here, which has a different primary/pilot air pathway setup vs. the older ones that a few members seem to have had significant trouble with. It's been trouble free over the past year in all weather with 2-3 cords through it when I'm using it in the shop, and so far it's been good during my cat 1-2 testing, although I don't much like the binary on-off nature of the forced draft control system for a house application, so that will also be part of the project to test some various control methodology as well.

The first part of the project is to add some instrumentation in its current location so i can get some idea of what the draft and temperatures are doing in the current spot, since I know it works well there, before I go and change things. There doesn't seem to be much interest here in this furnace due to some significant problems on the older models, but I figured I'd offer to document this project in case there might be some interest in how it goes.

View attachment 285734
I'm going to bring this thread back... because we just bought this (FC1000e) unit in October and are having an absolutely miserable time! You seem satisfied - so I'm wondering what you're doing and what kind of room temperatures you're achieving? Our days are in the high teens, with single digits at night right now. This thing is STRUGGLING to keep our 1600 sqft two story home at 70 during daytime operation... and I'm having to babysit it to maintain that. Overnight, the house is dipping to 65, sometimes lower, if I don't wake up every few hours. I have frozen pipes - something we hadn't experienced with our old wood furnace (a US stove, hotblast). It's been one thing after another this winter - creosote buildup, a door issue, now this. I want to be happy with our purchase, and need to make it work, because buying another new system right now is not financially feasible when this one hasn't even seen us through a full heating season.
 

john26

Minister of Fire
Oct 27, 2008
705
Wildwood MO
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you are in for long winter if the furnace will hold up that long read few threads on here.