Don't worry about it. I've figured that out for myself. If I wanted help with that question I would have asked.
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
Don't worry about it. I've figured that out for myself. If I wanted help with that question I would have asked.
Ok just putting it out there. Boilers are inherently much more complicated and require atleast some degree of water treatment. Going with old tech doesn't change that
Yes, obviously water stoves are inherently much more complicated. Why would stainless steel water stoves need water treatment, though?
Because stainless still corrodes. Copper still corrodes. Pumps still corrode etc.
If I could avoid using water treatment by getting a stainless steel stove (and perhaps replacing my pump a little more often), that would be highly preferable to me. On the other hand, the smoke from my Taylor, which I used for about 13 years until I drained it about a month ago, never bothered me, and I would be happy with a replacement stove that was no different with regards to smoke.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
One last remark from me. It doesn't bother you. But some of these chemicals (in smoke) accumulate in mammals. And when you notice, it's too late. For you or for someone else.
Please do think about using dry wood as that helps avoid many of the problems in this respect. And apart from a one-time investment of time (and a relatively small investment in storage facilities) does not cost you much. After getting ahead with the stock of firewood, you'll be back to each year only processing the quantity of wood that you need in one year. It's just one or two years later that you use it.
Please do think about using dry wood as that helps avoid many of the problems in this respect. And apart from a one-time investment of time (and a relatively small investment in storage facilities) does not cost you much. After getting ahead with the stock of firewood, you'll be back to each year only processing the quantity of wood that you need in one year. It's just one or two years later that you use it.
In addition the wet wood and associated creosote also causes many boilers to fail it is very corrosive as well
I realize none of these components are going to last forever with or without chemical treatment. My understanding is that stainless steel would last a lot longer without treatment, though.
That depends on the allow of stainless and the quality of design and construction.
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
That's more or less my question. Who was using stainless before the EPA regulations put an end to the water stoves that, at least from my perspective in North Carolina, were dominating the market prior to the new emissions regulations? Or, if you don't know the answer to that question, who wasn't using it? I know Taylor and Legend, two North Carolina manufacturers, weren't. I'm pretty sure Hicks, another North Carolian manufacturer, wasn't. It seems like maybe Heatmor and Central Boiler are now, although I'm not entirely clear on that, and even if that is true now, I really don't know if that was true in the early 2000's. I haven't yet looked very close at Woodmaster or Crown Royal. I think Portage and Main mostly doesn't but does offer a stainless option. I don't know if they were even making stoves in the early 2000's.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
If you don't mind the smoke, the water additives are the least of your worries, and much cheaper than premature boiler or pump replacements.
Maybe for you. Not for me.
When do you even notice the smoke from stoves like my old Taylor? Just when you have the firebox door open?
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
The pollutants in the smoke are far more toxic than those in the water. I used to live in NC, in the Piedmont as well. You don't have a massive heating load, so I know your stove spends a lot of time idling. When there is no call for heat, that stove is just a charcoal producing smoke factory, you must not looking when it's happening. A modern EPA approved downdraft boiler will produce almost no smoke at any time in the burn and use less wood (not a big selling point when you live in NC). You are actually looking for a coal fired boiler if you want to buy new, otherwise you are just going to buy a used boiler that still needs water treatment.
Like I said, research some water chemistry. Unless you use a closed system boiler (not really possible with an outdoor unit), you will be using water treatment. There really is no way of magically removing the free oxygen from the water, and without doing that you can't prevent rust. Seriously, learn some super basic chemistry and save yourself some hassle.
There is no magic open system hydronic heater of any type that can get away without water treatment or routine maintenance. Water treatment is the least labor intensive method for dealing with open system hydronic heaters.
You will save money in the long term if you get an updated EPA boiler, but you don't sound like the kind of guy that wants to do the best thing possible.
Based on what? How am I supposed to research how toxic the water treatment ingredients are if I can't even get complete ingredient lists because the ingredient list is proprietary?
But that gets back to my last question: when would you even notice the smoke? If there's smoke going up and out the chimney and blowing away, why is that such a big deal to you?
I have a neighbor with a Taylor, much like mine but a little newer -- he's had it at least since 2007 when I first moved here -- and he said he doesn't ever add any water treatment to it. If 15-20+ years is possible in a Taylor without water treatment, how much life is possible with a stainless stove without water treatment? And how long can a water stove be expected to last even with water treatment? What's the oldest water stove anyone on this forum is using?
Why not? Just curious.
Money? Besides the cost of the stove, water treatment (which is a separate question from whether I get an updated EPA stove or not), a small amount of electricity for the system, chainsaw expenses... what dollar costs are there? Are you saying the difference in electric and chainsaw dollar expenses alone would pay for an updated EPA stove long term?
I really am curious why you are so set on using a boiler honestly. A simple woodstove is far less expensive and complicated and it works without power
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
So It’s ok to fill the air with chemically bad stuff from a choked or idle fire in an ODB but it’s not OK to treat the boiler water with an rust prevention additive because you don’t know what’s in the bottle.
Lots of reasons: limited space in the house, heating my domestic hot water (that's a really big one), being able to easily burn things besides just firewood (like prunings from diseased fruit trees), reduced fire hazard, being able to make my own charcoal in a modified propane tank (without any propane) in the firebox of the water stove, the convenience of thermostatically controlled heat...
In my last house I had a basement with a simple wood stove in the basement, and that worked great for me there, and if I build another house, I'd want to at least have a simple wood stove in the house for back-up, and I recognize many of the low-tech advantages of a simple wood stove, but for my current circumstances an outdoor water stove definitely seems to make the most sense.
That's not how I'd put it, but yes. If you see things differently, I'm not trying to make any counter-argument. But if you want to convince me otherwise you'll have to give me a whole lot more information than anyone has shared int his thread so far, and probably more information than can reasonably be shared in a forum like this, and probably more information than I'm going to be motivated to read at this point. I'd want to know how these naturally occurring chemicals compare to smoke from chimneys, forest fires, camp fires, third world style cooking fires, etc. I'd want to know how these things compare to car exhaust, diesel engine exhaust, etc. I'd want to know what kind of exposure there is immediately around my stove and what kind of exposure there is once the smoke has blown away and dissipated. I'd want to know what happens to these things over time. I'd want to see controlled scientific studies comparing all these variables. Etc., etc. And even then I'm still not going to want to use unknown chemicals for water treatment, which is really a separate question from how bad wood smoke is.
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
I went from a wood stove, to a wood furnace, and will be installing a EPA approved OWB this year.
Wood Stove = bedrooms were always cold ( ranch home ), mess in the house, needs fed in the middle of the night, house smelled like smoke sometimes when you would get a "wind event", as I get older I respect fire more.
Wood Furnace = needs fed in the middle of the night when temps are really cold, mess in the basement, tired of babysitting ( this has more to do with the model I have ), tried of tearing up my yard bringing totes of wood in ( again, my particular situation ), as I get older I respect fire more.
OWB = mess outside, fire is outside, more efficient, 12 - 24 hour loads, Uncle Joe is giving me 26% of my money back.
Last edited:
I have absolutely no issue with clean burning outside burners. They aren't for me but to each their own. I was just pointing out that his desire for simple no frills heat doesn't really fit with an outdoor burner. And btw I have never gotten up in the middle of the night to load any of my wood stoves. If I had to do that I wouldn't be heating with wood. I also really don't see how an outside burner could be more efficient than a good modern stove. Cooler bedrooms is definitely an issue but one I actually prefer. But again not saying there is anything at all wrong with your choice.I went from a wood stove, to a wood furnace, and will be installing a EPA approved OWB this year.
Wood Stove = bedrooms were always cold ( ranch home ), mess in the house, needs fed in the middle of the night, house smelled like smoke sometimes when you would get a "wind event", as I get older I respect fire more.
Wood Furnace = needs fed in the middle of the night when temps are really cold, mess in the basement, tired of babysitting ( this has more to do with the model I have ), tried of tearing up my yard bringing totes of wood in ( again, my particular situation ), as I get older I respect fire more.
OWB = mess outside, fire is outside, more efficient, 12 - 24 hour loads, Uncle Joe is giving me 26% of my money back.
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
The wood stove was a mid-size Dutchwest catalytic stove ( 6" flue ). Smallish firebox, so maybe that was part of the issue. I'd load it at 10PM and would have to generally reload it at 3 or 4AM.
The EPA numbers don't lie.
Both lists were sorted by efficiency and fuel type as being Cord Wood.Wood Stove / Room Heater
OWB
I believe the real reason that the EPA approved OWB's can achieve such a high efficiency is via downdraft gasification. My assumption is, there isn't enough room in a wood stove to do that. I'm buying a G4000 which is rated at 82% efficient, my current wood furnace is 76% via old EPA test, can't remember what the Dutchwest wood stove was rated at. Minimal % gained in my for my situation, but I'll take it.
Last edited:
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
That's the efficiency converting wood into heat that does not go up the flue. I don't believe that the losses (of transport and storage) are factored in those numbers, and I think that doing so would invert the order OWB/stove.
Nevertheless, the difference is so small that the average person (with variable wood quality etc.) won't see the difference.
Nevertheless, the difference is so small that the average person (with variable wood quality etc.) won't see the difference.
That couple percent advantage in combustion efficiency is lost many times over in transferring the heat to the home.The wood stove was a mid-size Dutchwest catalytic stove ( 6" flue ). Smallish firebox, so maybe that was part of the issue. I'd load it at 10PM and would have to generally reload it at 3 or 4AM.
The EPA numbers don't lie.
Wood Stove / Room Heater
View attachment 294882
OWB
View attachment 294883
I believe the real reason that the EPA approved OWB's can achieve such a high efficiency is via downdraft gasification. My assumption is, there isn't enough room in a wood stove to do that. I'm buying a G4000 which is rated at 82% efficient, my current wood furnace is 76% via old EPA test, can't remember what the Dutchwest wood stove was rated at. Minimal % gained in my for my situation, but I'll take it.
- Status
Similar threads
