I just bought a used Hardy water stove -- I don't have it hooked up yet -- to replace my Taylor that just started leaking. I really like the idea of stainless, especially because I don't want to have to use chemical treatments, but I think I want 300-600 gallons of water capacity instead of just the 100 gallons with the Hardy I bought. Plus the Hardy I bought is really old, and I think I'd like something newer but still pre-dating the EPA emissions regulations. I want to be able to burn wood that isn't necessarily fully seasoned or split in smaller pieces. Basically, I'm looking for the closest thing I can find to my late 1980's Taylor but I want a stove that was made in the early 2000's and with stainless wherever rust could otherwise lead to leaks. Do the Heatmor or Central Boiler stoves from the 2000's have any parts that could rust and leak? Or are just the fireboxes stainless? On some models/all? Are there any other brands that wouldn't require water treatments? Thanks!
which pre-EPA water stoves were stainless?
- Thread starter Ericcc
- 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.
- Status
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Thanks!
Do you have any ideas why the Hardys would have been prone to cracking? I guess you mean in the firebox or water jacket itself?
I just had to drain my old Taylor, like I said, and I noticed today that there's a big dead area in the grass where I drained it. I have no idea what's in those chemicals or what environmental harm I may have caused. I know I'm outside the mainstream, but if there are alternatives to chemicals (especially these mystery proprietary formulations, which is all I've been able to find), I'd go to substantial effort/cost to avoid them. And, of course, there's some cost and effort required to use them over the life of a stove. I'm not trying to convince anyone else of the validity of my preferences, but they are definitely my strong preference.
Do you have any ideas why the Hardys would have been prone to cracking? I guess you mean in the firebox or water jacket itself?
I just had to drain my old Taylor, like I said, and I noticed today that there's a big dead area in the grass where I drained it. I have no idea what's in those chemicals or what environmental harm I may have caused. I know I'm outside the mainstream, but if there are alternatives to chemicals (especially these mystery proprietary formulations, which is all I've been able to find), I'd go to substantial effort/cost to avoid them. And, of course, there's some cost and effort required to use them over the life of a stove. I'm not trying to convince anyone else of the validity of my preferences, but they are definitely my strong preference.
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
My understanding is that they used the wrong grade of stainless...one that doesn't take to heat/cool cycles too well. (or even being exposed to fire in general)
As far as the water treatment, I'm no chemist, but I think many of those product have high PH, so that dumped in one spot would certainly kill some grass...but I doubt there is any permanent harm done (assuming that there wasn't something added to the water that shouldn't have been)
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
So you don't like liquid chemical discharge but are ok with pumping chemicals into the air by burning half seasoned wood (of which you also need more because its heat output is less)?
Those are indeed preferences that I don't understand
Those are indeed preferences that I don't understand
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
As I understand it the chemicals added to the water are mostly just to regulated the PH and include chlorine, bromine, and certain types of salts. Nothing bad for the environment as a whole, particularly on the scale you are using it. In the short term it will ruin the PH of the soil, but you could mitigate this with heavy dilution. As Stoveliker mentioned, the air pollution from a pre-epa wood fired hydronic heater and marginal wood is worse than the water additives.
salecker
Minister of Fire
You should step up to something modern,i am assuming you don't live in a cave.
A modern gasser with a closed system will get you away from chemicals and poisoning your air.
A modern gasser with a closed system will get you away from chemicals and poisoning your air.
But does anyone know any of the answers to the question of which pre-EPA water stoves didn't require water treatment because they were stainless? Hardy is the only brand I know that advertised that, but were there others?
My main question is still my main question, but what is your understanding based on? There's no way to find out exactly what's in any given treatment, is there? It seems like the exact ingredients are always a proprietary secret.
What particular chemicals are there in wood smoke that you'd actually worry about? Anything worse than cow farts? I'm not going to eat lab cultured meat or mass-produced, processed soy or other meat substitutes to avoid cow farts. I'm not really worried about things that have been around for thousands of years, but I'm skeptical of novel things with a very short (not even close a millennium) track record.
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
None that I know of.
If Hardy advertised that, it was stupid on their part because treatment protects the whole system, not just the boiler.
salecker
Minister of Fire
What else is there to protect? There's a pump, PEX lines, a copper heat exchanger... Is that what you mean by the rest of the system? I can replace a pump cheaper than I can protect it, and PEX and copper aren't susceptible to rust.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I'm an animal science major and that requires me to take chemistry. To make the water not rust the steel you are mostly increasing the PH. The primary additives are Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda) and Potassium Hydroxide (Lye). Sure, not "safe" chemicals by any stretch. I would probably die if you poured a few hundred gallons of caustic water on me, but environmental damage is limited. Both are water soluble and not an environmental hazard in the quantities you will be using. These chemicals are used by paper plants, but they are discharging millions of gallons of alkaline/lye water, which does have some negative consequences for fresh water quality.
What do you use for the initial pH adjustment?
And what brands of non-gassifier, pre-EPA rules used water stoves could I look that were pressurized? I see used stoves for sale, but so far as I know all of the used water stoves I see being sold in my area (North Carolina) aren't pressurized systems. I'd be very open to a pressurized system, though, at least based on what I know so far.
So would any non-proprietary mix of those ingredients be a reasonable substitute for the common treatments with proprietary "recipes"?
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
To name a few: dioxin, benzene, formaldehyde. Cancer causing chemicals, chemicals that have been shown to induce mutations in your genes. Disease causing chemicals.
And particles that are small and can enter your bloodstream (or ruin your lungs).
As in things that are not good for you and that contributed to the life span of people being decades less than ours for thousands of years. The "cavemen had it so good because all was natural" argument is rather shortsighted.
Things have been around for thousands of years. But not in the quantities we are able to produce them due to our numbers as compared to the population for thousands of years.
Go, sniff formaldehyde and dioxin. Has been around for thousands of years in poor burning fires. See if you should be worried.
I don't. And I try to avoid at all cost spewing those in the air - hence my EPA stove. Why? Because people already did that experiment. We already know it's not good.
And the beauty is that it does not take much effort: regardless of what stove or burner/boiler you have, if you use drier wood, you'll put less of that stuff in the air where you live (and beyond). I understand not all folks can afford a spanking new, highly efficient stove (or in this case boiler). But all people can put up their wood two years in advance and reap the benefits of cleaner air AND more heat output because all that water (that makes the burn process produce these chemicals) does not suck up half the energy in the wood in order for the water to be pumped (boiled, vaporized) out of the chimney.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
The proprietary products mostly have dyes added so you can tell when you need to change the water. Maybe some have some trace chemicals to create surface coatings or whatever, but most of the heavy lifting is done through changing the PH. You should do more research on water chemistry if this is your main hang up on using a modern EPA stove. The smoke pollutants are worse than what goes in the water.
I'm pretty sure Polar brand hydronic heaters are made with stainless steel and rated for outdoor use, plus they are 2020 compliant and will save you from burning as much wood and improve your local air quality.
I owned a 2007 hawken branded global hydronics 409 stainless boiler for 10 years. The firebox and water jacket were all stainless. It required chemicals and a yearly water sample if you wanted to keep the warranty valid. It was really a good boiler other than for its healthy appetite. I ended up selling it and bought a used eko.
Thank you, but no, water treatments aren't my only hang up with new gassifiers. Actually, water treatments seem to be as much an issue with older stoves as current new stoves. Relatively low-tech systems generally seem more compatible with my lifestyle and preferences. And efficiency and local air quality (as relates to my own wood burning) aren't high priorities for me either.
Do you have any idea why chemicals were required to maintain the warranty? Apparently there were concerns with corrosion of the stainless steel?
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
Yup. I’m a wood burner using clean stuff without going full retard. I burn dry, tested and maintained 100% dry from the shed to the ashes.
I’m glad I don’t have such a butt hole neighbor to burn and stink out the town by burning wet wood in crap equipment. I’d likely ventilate it.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I'm confused, water treatment is too much pollution, but smoke is ok?
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
I’m not sure what you are up to. My point was if you or anybody else were burning crap wood with garbage equipment interfering with my life I’d be a tad upset.
I clearly stated how I treat my wood and I’m not out to piss off my neighbors with my wood burning.
I am sorry but if you want a simple low tech heating solution that doesn't require water treatment why not just use a woodstove?
- Status
Similar threads
