What’s wrong with this picture?

[begreen]

You may be charming yourself WiG but these snarky remarks are helping no one, especially when misstating specs.

 

[bholler]

You're about 4 posts behind here. Try to keep up.



Well, I'm not stupid enough to publically argue it's a bad idea to meet or exceed code and manufacturer minimums. I can say unequivocally that even wood that has undergone severe pyrolysis needs to reach a temperature of at least 170F degrees to ignite and many authorities put it as high as 200F. I can't even hold my hand on a surface that is 150 degrees without burning myself. I would be interested if you knew of a mechanism by which the wood under a layer of stone and two sheets of cement board could reach those temperatures while the stone on top remained cool to the touch.

I'm not debating that code shouldn't be met (regardless of whether it's enforced or not) and I didn't imply it with a wink and a nod. Do you have hearth temperature results from the lab testing you referred to? Only then would you know the specifics of how those numbers were arrived at.

No we don't have the lab results we don't need them they use a standard testing method to calculate the requirements. If they require that level of insulation it is because the temperatures they reached in testing told them they required it. Why would they choose to make it harder to install their stoves?

 

[Doc C]

 

[Doc C]

You're about 4 posts behind here. Try to keep up.



Well, I'm not stupid enough to publically argue it's a bad idea to meet or exceed code and manufacturer minimums. I can say unequivocally that even wood that has undergone severe pyrolysis needs to reach a temperature of at least 170F degrees to ignite and many authorities put it as high as 200F. I can't even hold my hand on a surface that is 150 degrees without burning myself. I would be interested if you knew of a mechanism by which the wood under a layer of stone and two sheets of cement board could reach those temperatures while the stone on top remained cool to the touch.

I'm not debating that code shouldn't be met (regardless of whether it's enforced or not) and I didn't imply it with a wink and a nod. Do you have hearth temperature results from the lab testing you referred to? Only then would you know the specifics of how those numbers were arrived at. I wouldn't assume they didn't just wing it for the sake of expedience and keeping costs low and liability protection high. My point is, we don't know whether the numbers are based on good science or not. That's not a good reason to ignore them but I'm not willing to assume they are accurate because we don't know.

I am confident they don't err on the side of recklessness.

Well in my case it doesn't matter. I'm almost done taking everything up.

With a wife as an insurance agent I can't get away with knowingly not doing things the right way.

Damn you guys for making me know! It's OK. This was in the plans just not this soon.

 

[Highbeam]

Also consider that hearth temperatures and the corresponding danger must be assessed at very high stove temps and not normal temperatures. Even though it felt okay during normal operation, the hearth might get too hot when you're cruising at 800 for extended periods.

It's a shame that esw can't engineer their stoves to require just "ember protection" but if you want to, you can spend more and buy a stove that only requires ember protection.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Why would they choose to make it harder to install their stoves?

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to speculate like you are because I would have to make the assumption that everyone behaves in a rational manner. Once they have spelled out the minimums, there is only one rational thing to do. Even if the minimums were based upon a fairy dust, unicorn horns, bad science or pure laziness/cheapness. I suspect the later two.

They don't even specify different minimums depending upon pedestal base or claw feet! You know they tested this carefully to save the consumer money!

I respect Doc for demonstrating industriousness and a lack of hesitation!

 

[bholler]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to speculate like you are because I would have to make the assumption that everyone behaves in a rational manner. Once they have spelled out the minimums, there is only one rational thing to do. Even if the minimums were based upon a fairy dust, unicorn horns, bad science or pure laziness/cheapness. I suspect the later two.

They don't even specify different minimums depending upon pedestal base or claw feet! You know they tested this carefully to save the consumer money!

I respect Doc for demonstrating industriousness and a lack of hesitation!

have you ever seen ul testing? Have you talked to engineers from stove companies about this? No they didn't test it carefully to save the consumer money. They tested it carefully to save their life. What could possibly be gained by them for making the hearth protection pointlessly higher? It certainly isn't going to help them sell more stoves.

 

[bholler]

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to speculate like you are because I would have to make the assumption that everyone behaves in a rational manner. Once they have spelled out the minimums, there is only one rational thing to do. Even if the minimums were based upon a fairy dust, unicorn horns, bad science or pure laziness/cheapness. I suspect the later two.

They don't even specify different minimums depending upon pedestal base or claw feet! You know they tested this carefully to save the consumer money!

I respect Doc for demonstrating industriousness and a lack of hesitation!

Ask bkvp if they add much of a safety cushion to their clearance requirements. Or stove guy for that matter.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

What could possibly be gained by them for making the hearth protection pointlessly higher? It certainly isn't going to help them sell more stoves.

Why keep speculating? It's my position that we don't know how or why they chose R-2. If you know differently, then provide the info. If you can show me the test procedures and the results then we have something to discuss. Until then it's pure speculation how they specified R-2.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Ask bkvp if they add much of a safety cushion to their clearance requirements. Or stove guy for that matter.

I didn't say they added a "safety cushion". But I would caution you against assuming every small independent stove manufacturer behaves the same way.

 

[bholler]

Why keep speculating? It's my position that we don't know how or why they chose R-2. If you know differently, then provide the info. If you can show me the test procedures and the results then we have something to discuss. Until then it's pure speculation how they specified R-2.

I already told you I didn't have those lab results. And no I am not able to discuss any of the testing I have seen or many of the discussions I have had with engineers from several companies. But I can tell you it is not speculation. They have certain heat thresholds they need to meet in order to determine the hearth requirements.

 

[bholler]

I didn't say they added a "safety cushion". But I would caution you against assuming every stove manufacturer behaves the same way.

They have to if they have a ul seal on their product.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

They have to if they have a ul seal on their product.

You sure like to argue about nothing. I didn't say they didn't add a safety cushion. All I'm saying is, without the test results we don't know how they arrived at R-2. And it's immaterial because once they say R-2, that's what you need to keep the authorities and insurance happy.

BTW, R-2 is more insulation than what is required by NFPA for old, unlisted and untested woodstoves with legs at least 6" tall. So I wouldn't be surprised if they specified R-2 just so they wouldn't have to undergo the expense of testing to verify lower values are safe. Maybe they were just cheaping out.

 

[VirginiaIron]

I hate to grab a dog by the ears, but rather than tearing up the floor, could Doc have gotten away with a raised platform under his stove?

 

[begreen]

Also consider that hearth temperatures and the corresponding danger must be assessed at very high stove temps and not normal temperatures. Even though it felt okay during normal operation, the hearth might get too hot when you're cruising at 800 for extended periods.

It's a shame that esw can't engineer their stoves to require just "ember protection" but if you want to, you can spend more and buy a stove that only requires ember protection.

Yes, the high hearth requirement can hurt sales. I think they got the message. Their latest models are ember protection only.

 

[Doc C]

have you ever seen ul testing? Have you talked to engineers from stove companies about this? No they didn't test it carefully to save the consumer money. They tested it carefully to save their life. What could possibly be gained by them for making the hearth protection pointlessly higher? It certainly isn't going to help them sell more stoves.

I suspect there is a pretty good safety margin built in and it's to cover the manufacturers butt.

But that's perfectly fine. I worked full time fire for a long time a I can tell you the last thing you want to see is a house fire...you have life safety issues with the occupants, the firefighters, drivers on the road dodging fire trucks, ems workers responding to the fire calls, neighbors and more all because someone didn't follow what was required.

It's a few bucks and a little labor and it's done right and I can sleep at night.

It would be interesting to know how they come up with the numbers though strictly from a knowledge standpoint and not a trying to get around the system standpoint.

And that might be why the testing is not made readily available!

 

[Doc C]

I hate to grab a dog by the ears, but rather than tearing up the floor, could Doc have gotten away with a raised platform under his stove?

Yes I could of I'm sure. But the wife wanted the laminate to be run around the living room and a hearth built just to the size it needs to be.

This just motivated me to get it done!

 

[bholler]

You sure like to argue about nothing. I didn't say they didn't add a safety cushion. All I'm saying is, without the test results we don't know how they arrived at R-2. And it's immaterial because once they say R-2, that's what you need to keep the authorities and insurance happy.

And I am telling you it is not up to the stove company if they have a ul seal on their stove

Also I am not arguing about nothing. I am trying to get it across to anyone who reads this that your attitude that one can safely cheat the requirements is a very dangerous game to play.

 

[bholler]

I suspect there is a pretty good safety margin built in and it's to cover the manufacturers butt.

But that's perfectly fine. I worked full time fire for a long time a I can tell you the last thing you want to see is a house fire...you have life safety issues with the occupants, the firefighters, drivers on the road dodging fire trucks, ems workers responding to the fire calls, neighbors and more all because someone didn't follow what was required.

It's a few bucks and a little labor and it's done right and I can sleep at night.

It would be interesting to know how they come up with the numbers though strictly from a knowledge standpoint and not a trying to get around the system standpoint.

And that might be why the testing is not made readily available!

You can find some info about the testing procedures online but not allot without paying for access. I have seen some testing but had to sign nondisclosure agreements to see it

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

They tested it carefully to save their life.

Are you sure? I've seen no evidence that's true.

What could possibly be gained by them for making the hearth protection pointlessly higher?

Ever heard of cost savings? Not the consumers, the manufacturers.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

It would be interesting to know how they come up with the numbers though strictly from a knowledge standpoint and not a trying to get around the system standpoint.

And that might be why the testing is not made readily available!

The testing might not be required if the manufacturer specifies more insulation than what's required on unlisted appliances. That would explain a lot.

 

[bholler]

Are you sure? I've seen no evidence that's true.



Ever heard of cost savings? Not the consumers, the manufacturers.

I have made my point and see no reason to argue with someone who will not listen to the truth. But yes the reason the r value is higher on these stoves is cost savings. But those cost saving come in the way of less shielding and insulation resulting in the need for more hearth.

 

[bholler]

The testing might not be required if the manufacturer specifies more insulation than what's required on unlisted appliances. That would explain a lot.

Not true at all

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

And I am telling you it is not up to the stove company if they have a ul seal on their stove

And you "know" this how? I'm not saying the manufacturer can write the rules, I'm saying there may be a threshold insulation level that requires no testing of hearth insulation levels. If so, that would be written into the UL listing rules.

I am trying to get it across to anyone who reads this that your attitude that one can safely cheat the requirements is a very dangerous game to play.

But I didn't say one can safely cheat the requirements. In fact, I said the opposite. Once the manufacturer states a minimum value, that value must be met (or exceeded). Don't put words into my mouth.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

I have made my point and see no reason to argue with someone who will not listen to the truth. But yes the reason the r value is higher on these stoves is cost savings. But those cost saving come in the way of less shielding and insulation resulting in the need for more hearth.

Oh, I'm listening alright. But you haven't convinced me your words are the truth. That takes cold hard evidence. Which you have provided exactly NONE.